Advocates:
['MASKE PATIL UTTRESHWAR M', '', 'B R MOKASHI AND ASSOCIATES', 'COPY SERVED ON P P']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.170 OF 2022

MR. SIDHANT ANANDRAO SONKAMBLE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

…..

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A. R. Mokashi h/f Mr. U. M. Maske Patil

APP for Respondent-State : Mr. B. V. Virdhe

…..

CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Date of Reserving The Order

:

23-02-2022

Date of Pronouncing The Order :

28-03-2022

ORDER :

1.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime

No.362 of 2021, registered with Vimantal (Airport) Police Station,

Nanded, District Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 376

(2) (n) and 313 of IPC.

2.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. R. Mokashi holding for Mr. U. M.

Maske Patil for applicant and learned APP Mr. B. V. Virdhe for

respondent-State.

3.

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that

2

ABA 170-2022

the applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant. The

prosecutrix is a major girl and it appears that she had sexual

relationship with the applicant voluntarily. When the major girl had

consented for the sexual relationship, then it will not attract offence

punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The informant has concealed

several facts intentionally. She had come down to Mumbai where

the applicant is serving in Fire Brigade and staying in Mumbai itself.

She had stayed at his home once and on another occasion it was in

Nalasopara in a lodge. She has tried to pretend that she had not

consented or she had not gone to Mumbai on the say of the

applicant, rather on the say of the prosecutrix the applicant had

gone to Nanded, is her say. Another fact to be noted is that from

April 2020 when it was the pandemic situation, the applicant who

services were very much needed and he could not have left his

headquarter, it is hard to believe that he would have gone to meet

her in Ganraj Lodge almost every month and had physical relations

with her by promising to marry. In fact, it is the case of the

applicant that though the applicant was knowing the first informant

and is accepting that he had physical relationship with the

prosecutrix, but the relations got strained later on. Applicant had

caused transfer of some of Rs.5 lakh to one Mandeep Kaur from

3

ABA 170-2022

Nanded on the say of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix had given

assurance that the said amount would be returned to him. However,

after several months when he could not get the amount, he asked

the prosecutrix to get back the amount and at that time there were

altercations between them and prosecutrix refused to pay the

amount. The applicant has produced on record his bank statement

to show that he had caused the amount transfer in the name of said

Mandeep Kaur. The applicant has also produced on record the

attendance sheet from April 2020 to show that he has not left the

headquarter as per the contention of the informant. It is further

stated that the prosecutrix got pregnant, and thereafter, on the say

of applicant, his brother had provided certain tablets which caused

miscarriage, but there is no evidence to support the contention of

the prosecutrix.

4.

It has been further submitted that in the catena of Judgments

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been laid down that where the

prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love

and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of

misrepresentation made to her by the accused, then such facts do

not attract the offence of rape. He relied on the decision in Deepak

4

ABA 170-2022

Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court

Cases 675. He further relied on the decision in Uday Vs. State of

Karnataka, reported in 2003 (4) SCC 46, which is on the same line.

Further reliance has been placed on the decision of High Court of

Madras in S. Kumaresan Vs. State (Cri.O.P.No.3341 of 2017,

decided on 27