CHHAYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. The matter is taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.

(2.) The appellant preferred the present appeal against the impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellant in Crime No. 95 of 2019 registered with Latur Gramin Police Station, District Latur, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as "Act of 1989", for the sake of brevity). The appellant-accused preferred the present appeal by invoking remedy under Section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989.

(3.) According to prosecution that on 18-06-2019, complainant - Anuksha Pandurang Kamble, resident of Bharne, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri, rushed to the Police of Latur Gramin Police Station, District Latur, and ventilated the grievance that in the year 2016, after examination of 10th standard, she came to the house of her maternal Aunt at Katpur, District Latur, for enjoying vacation. Meanwhile, she came in contact with accused Vishwajeet Abhimanyu Devkate, son of appellant-accused. Thereafter, Vishwajeet developed intimacy with the first informant. He gave promise of marriage to the first informant. There were physical relations in between first informant and Vishwajeet under the pretext of promise of marriage. In the year 2019, first informant became pregnant. She insisted the accused Vishwajeet to perform marriage with her. But, he refused to budge for marital relations with the first informant. According to prosecution, first informant, her parents had been to the house of Vishwajeet to see him and his parents and other relatives. The complainant and her parents made endeavour to give understanding to them to perform marriage of Vishwajeet with first informant. But, the present appellant and other family members abused first informant on her caste and refused to perform marriage of Vishwajeet son of appellant with the first informant. Thereafter, the complainant-first informant filed the report.