The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to cases involving allegations of rape, unnatural intercourse, and threatened abortion against members of scheduled castes.

JUDGMENT :

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant impugns an order of rejection of his pre-arrest bail passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai in C.R. No. 237 of 2019 on 29th July, 2019.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant and the victim (respondent No. 2) were in consensual relationship since the year 2009.

3. The appellant had hired a flat for respondent No. 2 of which he used to pay rent. The appellant had also put forth a proposal of marriage to respondent No. 2 by expressing his love and wanted to support her because respondent No. 2 is a single parent of her school going child. It is the contention of respondent No. 2 that under the said pretext, the appellant had raped her on several occasions under a false promise of marriage. At times, he used to abuse and assault as well as threatened her.

4. Sometime in the month of September, 2015, when respondent No. 2 conceived and the said fact was revealed to the appellant, he had caused some tablet to be inserted into the vagina of respondent No. 2, due to which, she had experienced unbearable pain and ultimately an unborn fetus was required to be aborted by a Gynecologist, Dr. Shetty. (Threatened abortion).

5. There is no dispute that respondent No. 2 belongs to scheduled caste community, whereas the appellant does not belong to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Respondent No. 2, apart from the allegations of rape, hurt, threats has also alleged that she was subjected to unnatural intercourse, meaning thereby, the appellant had forced carnal intercourse upon her. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant is married, having two children and respondent No. 2 had separated from her husband.

6. Subsequently, when respondent No. 2 noticed that the appellant was trying to avoid her despite establishing sexual relations and subjecting her to unnatural intercourse, she approached the Police and lodged a report.

7. The appellant preferred an application seeking pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court, Mumbai bearing A.B.A. No. 551 of 2019. He was granted interim relief during the pendency of the main application. Subsequently, by an order dated 29th July, 2019, the application seeking anticipatory bail came to be rejected.

8. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Waghmare as well as Mr. Chandrachud, Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sangvikar, representing respondent No. 2.

9. The appellant has been booked by Police Station Bandra, Mumbai vide C.R. No. 237 of 2019.

10. The appellant is a businessman and manager of company. Respondent No. 2 was working as a Sales Executive. The appellant got in touch with her due to office work and thereafter, they came close to each other. Respondent No. 2 was residing with her child. The appellant by exploiting the aforesaid situation, proposed to marry her and the same was accepted by respondent No. 2. The appellant, in the month of June, 2009 had taken a separate room for respondent No. 2. One night appellant came to respondent No. 2 and on a false promise of marriage, he established sexual relations with her.

11. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no whisper of atrocity alleged to have been committed qua respondent No. 2 by the appellant in the First Information Report. It is contended that only by way of supplementary statements which came to be recorded on 27th March, 2019 by way of an afterthought, it had been shown that the atrocities were committed on the basis of caste of respondent No. 2. It is contended that some of the witnesses, more particularly, witness Sayyed Atiq Mohamed is a got up witness of the Investigating Agency. It is submitted that it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the appellant and respondent No. 2 were in consensual relationship for more than 10 years and almost all the expenses of the respondent No. 2 were incurred by the appellant.

12. The incident in question alleged to have occurred in the month