Bombay High Court
Santosh Shankar Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 February, 2021
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
1/6 16-ABA-2288-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2288 OF 2019
Santosh Shankar Thakur .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, Advocate for Applicant.
• Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.1115/2019 registered with Dehu Road Police
Station, under sections 376, 354, (A), 452, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The FIR is lodged by the prosecutrix herself. She was a
married lady. She has stated that since May 2019, the Applicant
was trying to get friendly with her. On one occasion, he entered
her house when no one was present. He left his mobile phone in
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:30:50 :::
2/6 16-ABA-2288-19.odt
the house, though she did not want it. Thereafter he started
contacting her using that mobile phone. It is alleged that the
Applicant used to send obscene messages to her. If she did not
reply, he used to threaten her that he would tell her husband
that he had visited her house and that he had given her a mobile
phone. Under these threats the prosecutrix did whatever he told
her to do. She used to send him her photographs. He used to
make one call at least in a day and used to send many messages
throughout the day. On 06/06/2019, the Applicant called her to
meet him at Akurdi Railway station. She went there. Then he
again called her and asked her to come near Bank of
Maharashtra. She went there. The Applicant came in a swift car.
He asked the prosecutrix to sit in the car. He gave her a cold-
drink. He took the car towards Aundh. She was feeling giddy. It
is alleged that he had taken her Aadhar card from her purse. He
took her to a lodge. It was 03.00 p.m. It is her case in the FIR
that she was taken to a room. There she was made to drink
another cold-drink. She felt further giddiness. After some time
she woke up. That time she realized that the Applicant had
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:30:50 :::
3/6 16-ABA-2288-19.odt
committed rape on her. After that, the Applicant threatened her,
booked a cab for her and then she left. It is her case that since
that day, she was scared and ultimately she took her husband in
confidence and lodged this FIR.
3. Heard Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Mr.H.J. Dedhia, learned APP for the State.
4. Mr.Bhujbal submitted that the Applicant himself has
given a complaint on 21/09/2019 against the prosecutrix and
her husband. In that complaint, he has stated that they were
threatening him. There are allegations that the prosecutrix
herself had made advances towards him. He had refused. Her
husband had subsequently threatened him to implicate him in a
false rape case. Mr. Bhujbal therefore submitted that as a
counterblast to this complaint, the FIR is lodged against him.
5. Learned APP produced the papers of investigation
before me and opposed the application.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:30:50 :::
4/6 16-ABA-2288-19.odt
6. Though the APP has opposed this application, there are
certain statements in the investigation papers which do not
support prosecutrix's case. There are statement of two
employees of the lodge, where the prosecutrix and the Applicant
had gone and where allegedly the offence had taken place. In
those two statements these witnesses have stated that the couple
had came to their lodge at around 03.00 p.m. That time, the
lady was walking properly and she was accompanied with her
companion to that room. Even after that there was nothing
noticeable about their behaviour. At about 04.30 p.m. the lady
had left the lodge. These statements show that the prosecutrix's
version that she was made to drink a spiked cold-drink before
going to the lodge, does not appear to be true. From the
investigation papers it appears that there was consensual
relationship, though now both the parties are making allegations
against each other.
7. The Applicant had given his own complaint prior to
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:30:50 :::
5/6 16-ABA-2288-19.odt
this FIR. It is also significant that the prosecutrix used to receive
obscene messages from the Applicant and yet she went to meet
him at Akurdi Railway Station, sat in his car and went to a
lodge. All this conduct does point to their consensual
relationship. Therefore sufficient doubt is created about her
case. The application is pending since 2019. The learned APP
fairly states that the Applicant has cooperated with the
investigation and has attended police station whenever called. In
this view of the matter, custodial interrogation of the Applicant
is not necessary. He can be protected by an order of anticipatory
bail.
8. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.1115/2019 registered with Dehu Road Police Station, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:30:50 ::: 6/6 16-ABA-2288-19.odt Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The observations made in this order are only in respect of passing of this order. In future the trial Court shall not be influenced, if the occasion arise, by observations in this order.
(iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:30:50 :::