RAHUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Shri Deshmukh holding for Advocate Shaikh for applicant and learned APP Shri AM Phule for State.

(2.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed before the trial court vide Special Case No.2/2019. Physical custody of the applicant is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. In fact, There was love affair between the applicant and the victim. However, it appears that due to pressure from her parents, statement has been given by the victim. In fact, initially FIR was registered only under Section 363 of IPC, that too against unknown person. Whatever has happened between the victim and the applicant is with consent. The victim though it is stated was of 17 years of age at the time of the incident; yet she was having sufficient maturity. Perusal of the charge sheet would show that there are contradictions in the statement and the incidence. The statement of the victim would also show that there was every opportunity to the victim to run away; yet she did not do so and this also indicates that she had voluntarily gone along with the applicant. The learned advocate for the apalicant, therefore, prayed for bail.

(3.) Learned APP strongly objected the application by saying that age of the victim is below 18 years. That means she was minor on the date of the offence and, therefore, her consent is not the consent at all. The applicant has committed rape on the victim at various places, which is a heinous crime and, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.