Bombay High Court
Sunil @ Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Karale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 February, 2021
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
:1: 17-aba-st-4629-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 4629 OF 2020
Sunil @ Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Karale .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______
Mr. Zaid Anwar Qureshi i/b. Rohan Hogale for Applicant.
Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State/Respondent.
Mr. D. B. Desai, PSI, Vadgaon Maval Police Station, Pune Rural,
present.
______
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 03rd FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.62 of 2020 registered with Vadgaon Maval Police
Station, Pune Rural, on 04/03/2020, under sections 376 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R.) is
lodged by the prosecutrix herself. It is her case in the F.I.R. that the
applicant got acquainted with her since October, 2017. The
Gokhale 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 21:42:53 :::
:2: 17-aba-st-4629-20.odt
acquaintance developed into friendship. The applicant proposed to
her for marriage. At that time, she told him that she already was
having love affair with another person and that they were to get
married. The applicant made efforts and got acquainted with that
person and gave him financial help by way of loan on different
occasions to gain his trust. He also continued to meet the
informant and used to get small jobs done from her i.e. typing,
making online transactions etc. Then, in October, 2018 he took the
informant to a lodge. It is her case that, the applicant threatened
her and had physical relations against her wish. He threatened her
that he would tell the person with whom she intended to get
married, that she had accompanied him to that lodge. This was
repeated after every fortnight. In December, 2018 the informant
got married with the person with whom she was having an affair.
Even then the applicant kept physical relations with the informant.
In July, 2019 the informant refused to have any relations with the
applicant. At that time, the applicant threatened her that he would
lodge a false case against her husband. In August, 2019, the
applicant told the informant's husband that an offence was lodged
2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 21:42:53 :::
:3: 17-aba-st-4629-20.odt
against him and that he would see to it that nothing happened to
the informant's husband. Her husband, in turn, asked the
informant about it, because of which there was a quarrel between
the informant and her husband. The informant's husband left her.
It is her case that, at that time, the applicant was helping her to
find her husband's whereabouts. It is her case that the applicant
continued making indecent proposal to her, but she used to refuse.
On 15/12/2019 the applicant took the informant to the same
lodge and there the informant told the applicant that she did not
wish to continue all this and she wanted to reside peacefully with
her husband. The applicant gave her a gift and even thereafter
continued harassing her by making phone calls and threatening
her. Ultimately, the informant lodged her F.I.R.
3. Heard Mr. Zaid Qureshi, learned counsel for the
applicant and Smt. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention
to the bank statement of the applicant showing that the applicant
had given various amounts to the informant and her husband. He
submitted that, to avoid making repayment of these amounts, this
3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 21:42:53 :::
:4: 17-aba-st-4629-20.odt
false F.I.R. is lodged. He submitted that, in any case, the F.I.R.
shows that it was a consensual relationship and no offence, as
alleged, had taken place.
5. Learned APP relied on the allegations made in the
F.I.R. to oppose this application.
6. I have considered these submissions. The F.I.R. itself
shows that the informant was having physical relations with the
applicant for a long time, even before and after her marriage.
Though, she has claimed that, it was against her wish, however,
her conduct of visiting that lodge again and again shows that, she
was a willing party in the entire relationship. It appears to be so,
because, even before marriage with her husband she had relations
with the applicant and even after her marriage she continued to
have their relations. During all this period, she had not made any
complaint. Her claim that the relationship was established against
her wish will have to be tested during the trial, but at this stage,
there are sufficient indications in the F.I.R. that, it was a
consensual relationship. This has to be read in the background of
the financial transaction between the parties. As pointed out by the
4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 21:42:53 :::
:5: 17-aba-st-4629-20.odt
learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant had advanced
various amounts in favour of the informant and her husband,
therefore, there is considerable force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the applicant that this F.I.R. is lodged to avoid
making payment. Considering all these aspects, the applicant has
sufficiently made out a case for protection under section 438 of
Cr.p.c.
7. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.62 of 2020 registered with Vadgaon Maval Police Station, Pune Rural, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 5 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 21:42:53 :::