AJAY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 14(A) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act , 1989) (herein referred to as " The Act ") praying for an order of regular bail post submission of charge-sheet in connection with the offence registered as C.R. No.11823004210649/2021 with Dediyapada Police Station, Narmada for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(n) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act.

(2.) Mr. R.N. Majumdar, learned advocate for Mr. N.K. Majumdar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the first informant is aged about 27 years and working with the appellant, who is a running a hotel in the name of 'Ajay Nasta House' since last about one and half years. It is submitted that first informant aged about 27 years willingly had relation with the appellant and it was under her knowledge that the appellant is married and having children. It is further submitted that the First Information Report came to be filed after about 9 days of the last incident of the alleged rape which inspired no confidence. It is further submitted that according to the First Information Report, she is having physical relation with the appellant since January, 2020, though claimed to be against her wish, despite that she has never complained to anyone and on the contrary, continued to work at the place of the appellant and therefore, it is nothing but a case of relationship willingly entered into between two adults and therefore, there is no offence committed as alleged. Therefore, he has submitted that the appellant be released on bail.

(3.) As against that, Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP as also Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 - first informant submitted that since the appellant was the employer of the victim, he has exploited her and therefore, even if there is a delay in filing of the complaint, that may not be a reason to grant bail to the appellant. It is further submitted by Mr. Gandhi that her parents are no more and she is staying all alone on rent at different places. Therefore, in all probability, the first informant in need of her survival might have for some time permitted exploitation but at any rate, it cannot be said to be a consensual relationship and therefore, the appellant should not be released on bail. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate further submitted that since the appellant is having his roots and native state out of Gujarat, he is likely to abscond if released on bail.