Bombay High Court
Prem Santosh Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 October, 2022
Bench: N. R. Borkar
25-ABA-2919--22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2919 OF 2022
Prem Santosh Thakur ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
.........
Mr. Kuldeep Patil i/b Saili N. Dhuru for the Applicant.
Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.
.........
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATED : 20 OCTOBER 2022
P.C. :-
This is an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 275 of
2022 registered at Khargar police station, Navi Mumbai for the
offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 323, 504, 506 of
Indian Penal Code.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant and
the prosecutrix got acquainted with each other through social media.
The present applicant told the prosecutrix that he wants to marry her.
MJ Jadhav 1 / 3
25-ABA-2919--22.odt
He, however, put one condition that he wants to be sure that the girl
to whom he wants to marry is virgin and told her to allow him to
have sexual intercourse with her. According to the prosecution, as the
prosecutrix was in love with the present applicant and wanted to
marry him, she allowed the applicant to have sexual intercourse with
her. According to the prosecution, the applicant then on many
occasions on the false promise of marriage committed sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix and ultimately refused to marry her.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP for the respondent-State.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly
on the date of alleged incident the prosecutrix was major. It is
submitted even if the allegations are presumed to be true, the only
interference which can be drawn from the said allegations is that the
alleged relationship was consensual. It is submitted that considering
these facts and circumstances, the applicant may be released on
anticipatory bail.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court
wherein according to the learned counsel for the applicant, in similar
circumstances the anticipatory bail was granted to the accused therein.
MJ Jadhav 2 / 3
25-ABA-2919--22.odt
7. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-State
submits that the present applicant is involved in the serious offence of
rape. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence, the
applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.
8. I have perused the First Information Report lodged by the
prosecutrix. It appears that the applicant after proposing the
prosecutrix for marriage asked her to prove that she is virgin. It
appears that the prosecutrix to prove that she is virgin and as she was
assured by the applicant that he was going to marry her she allowed
him to have sexual intercourse with her. The alleged act, therefore,
cannot be said to be consensual.
9. Considering the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to
release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Facts of two cases can never
be identical and therefore, there is no point in referring to the
judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, at the stage
of bail.
10. The Application is rejected.
( N.R. BORKAR, J. )
MJ Jadhav 3 / 3
