XYZ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.

(2.) The appellant by this Criminal Appeal challenges an order dtd. 13/4/2023 enlarging the respondent No.2-original accused No.1 on bail in respect of the offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n), 385, 389, 504, 506, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Ss. 3(1), 3(1)(2), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sec. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the relationship appears to be consensual in nature. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the FIR it is mentioned that the victim was taken to the lodge only once whereas the trial Court erroneously proceeded on the footing that the accused had taken the informant to the lodge on several occasions.