: 1 :

19.ABA-50-21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2021

Asad Farhan Jamadar

.... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.... Respondent

______

Mr. Mahesh Vishwakarma, Advocate for the Applicant.

Smt. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the Respondent-State.

PSI R.T. Suryawanshi, Mhasala Police Station is present.

______

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE

: 15^th JANUARY, 2021

P.C. :

1.

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in

connection with C.R.No.52/2020 dated 14.10.2020 registered

at Mhasala Police Station, District-Raigad under Sections 376,

507 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 8 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

The FIR is lodged by the prosecutrix herself. She

has stated that in July, 2017, she came in contact with the

present Applicant through a social networking site. They

started chatting on the internet. They became friends and

1 of 6

Deshmane (PS)

: 2 :

19.ABA-50-21.odt

their friendship turned into love affair. It is further mentioned

in the FIR that in March, 2018, they met for the first time. In

April, 2018, they went for an outing and they had their first

sexual intercourse at a secluded spot near DiveAgar Beach.

The prosecutrix came to Pune for further education. Similarly

the Applicant also went to Pune for further education. The

prosecutrix was staying in a girls hostel. They started meeting

again. It is alleged in the FIR that the Applicant used to

threaten her that if she did not meet him, he would cause harm

to himself. Therefore, the prosecutrix used to meet him. The

FIR further mentions one occasion where they had their sexual

intercourse in a lodge. It is further alleged that since April,

2020 the Applicant went to his native place and started

avoiding her. He used to call her and abuse her and, therefore,

this FIR is lodged.

3.

Heard Shri Mahesh Vishwakarma, learned Counsel

for the Applicant and Smt. J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the

State.

2 of 6

: 3 :

19.ABA-50-21.odt

Submissions :

4.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that

the FIR itself shows that it was a consensual relationship. The

Applicant is a young boy of 21 years of age. He submitted that

the Applicant never had intention to give a false promise. In

fact both the families were knowing about their relationship

and on one occasion the families had met at the police station

and had decided to part ways.

5.

He submitted that though there is allegation that

on one occasion the physical relation was established when she

had not completed 18 years of age, but, this is just an

afterthought to give this offence a serious colour. He

submitted that taking into account the consensual nature of

their relationship, the Applicant needs to be protected by an

order of anticipatory bail.

6.

Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, opposed this

Application. She submitted that the victim gave consent only

because the Applicant had promised to marry her. And,

3 of 6

: 4 :

19.ABA-50-21.odt

therefore, that consent is vitiated. She submitted that now the

charge-sheet is already filed. She submitted that considering

the serious nature of allegations, the Applicant does not

deserve the protection of anticipatory bail.

Reasons :

7.

I have considered all these submissions. The FIR

itself shows that it was a consensual relationship. The

allegations are that they developed relationship before she

turned 18 years and then it continued after she became an

adult.

8.

The question would be whether the promise to

marry, made by the present Applicant, was made with a

dishonest motive or it was a genuine promise. In this particular

case it appears that the families of the victim and the Applicant

were involved. This affair was known to both the families.

This indicates that the Applicant did not establish this

re