Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2019
13. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that there appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the parties are major and are consenting parties and were in love affairs with each other for more than six months; there also appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that as per version of the F.I.R. and as per statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix is a major lady, aged about 19 years and appellant is also major and they made physical relation with the consent, therefore, allegation of making physical relation by the applicant on the false promise of marriage appears to be very awkward and further considering the fact that appellant is in jail since 27.11.2022 and has now by done a substantial period of detention and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.