LEENA DASHRATH GAVKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tyagi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant (through V.C.), Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for the RespondentState and Mr. Nikam, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3.

(2.) The Criminal Application is preferred seeking quashing and setting aside of bail Order dtd. 16/8/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.4940 of 2023 ("impugned order") and for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No.3.

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. Tyagi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Accused had approached the Applicant i.e. the victim through a matrimonial website and thereafter established a physical relationship with the Applicant. A WhatsApp group was also created by the family members of Respondent No.3 and that of the Applicant. He submitted that the Respondent No.3 established a physical relationship with the Applicant by making a promise of marriage and thereafter, the Respondent No.3 married a different woman. Therefore, an offence under Ss. 376(2)(n), 377 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out. He further submitted that the false promise of marriage made to the Applicant was only for the purpose of establishing physical relations with the Applicant on the pretext of marriage. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Puran v. Rambilas,(2001) 6 SCC 338. and particularly on paragraph no.11 thereof. He submitted that the Order granting bail passed by the learned Trial Court is a mechanical order and is perverse as the factual aspects have not been taken into consideration. He also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Nirwan v. State (NCT of Delhi),2024 SCC OnLine Del 3. and particularly on paragraph no.18 thereof.