KARTIK KUMAR NAIDU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Application under Sec. 439 of CrPC 'Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' seeking Regular Bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 533/2024 registered with Shree Nagar Police Station, Thane on 8/8/2024 for offences punishable under Ss. 376, 420 of IPC 'Indian Penal Code, 1860' and Ss. 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000. Applicant is arrested on 9/8/2024.

(2.) The incidents narrated in the FIR which form the basis of prosecution case are that, Applicant aged 43 year old and prosecutrix aged 30 year old got acquainted with each other since she was employed as a gym trainer at the gym owned by Applicant since December 2020; that since February 2021, she knew that Applicant was married and was having one daughter; that she chatted on phone for long hours with him initially regarding work and later started going out with him; their closeness then turned into a feeling of affection towards each other and after initial hesitation from prosecutrix and persistent demand by Applicant their professional relationship transformed into a love relationship in November 2021; since then both were constantly in touch with each other on a daily basis; since they had a good reputation in Society they decided against meeting in public spaces and instead explored to find a rented accommodation for the prosecutrix and her minor son of six years to stay so that they could meet in that place. According to the prosecutrix during this time, sometime in the month of April 2022 when Applicant's family members were not present in his house he invited the prosecutrix and established physical relations with her against her wish. Thereafter in the next few days he repeated his act twice, once in the gym and at another time in a hotel room at Jayesh-Inn Hotel. Thereafter prosecutrix states that she went with Applicant to the same hotel 2 to 3 times.

(3.) Mr. Sutaria, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant would counter the contents of the FIR to submit that Applicant and prosecutrix, both of whom were in a subsisting marriage during the tenure of the alleged incidents itself shuns out the possibility of establishing physical relationship on the pretext or promise of marriage.