VIKAS CHHAGAN SHIRSATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-242
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 25,2007

VIKAS CHHAGAN SHIRSATH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)HEARD the learned Advocate for the Applicant, the learned Advocate for orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State.
(2.)THE applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.499 of 2006 of Kothrud Police Station, Pune. THE said case is under Sections 366, 376 of IPC.
The prosecutrix was 18 years of age at the time of the incident. She knew the applicant prior to the incident as he was residing opposite her house. The applicant used to telephone the prosecutrix. So also the prosecutrix used to call the applicant on his mobile and chat with him. Thereafter the applicant told the prosecutrix "you are mine. I cannot leave you". On 5.8.2006 the applicant telephoned the prosecutrix stating that they will go for a trip. She agreed to go with him for a trip. From Pune they went to Lonawala for the trip. Thereafter they came back to Pune. When they came back to Pune the sister of the prosecutrix saw them and the sister of the prosecutrix told her that she would tell their mother about this fact. Hence, the prosecutrix telephoned the applicant and told him that her sister would tell her mother about the fact hence the prosecutrix was going to Dhule.

It is the case of the prosecutrix that the applicant asked her not to go Dhule and threatened her. The prosecutrix has stated that she wrote a letter addressed to her mother and thereafter she took her clothes and went to bus-stand. There she telephoned the applicant; whereupon the applicant came to the bus-stand. Thereafter the applicant and the prosecutrix bought tickets to Chennai and they travelled by train to Chennai.

(3.)IT is the case of the prosecutrix that they stayed in some hotel in Chennai for over 15 days. At that time, the applicant told her that he was going in search of a job and every morning he went away after locking her in the hotel room and came back in the night. IT is her case that at that time the applicant also had sexual intercourse with her. Fifteen days thereafter she was taken to Court and made to sign in the register and she was informed that she and the applicant had performed registered marriage. Thereafter they came back to Mumbai. They travelled to various placed by rickshaw. Then the prosecutrix and the applicant started residing in a house. Thereafter the prosecutrix as per her wish took up a job in a call-centre. IT is her case that the applicant used to leave her at the call-centre and wait outside and pick her up in the evening.
The facts prima facie show that it was a case of consent. It appears that the prosecutrix has voluntarily of her own accord gone with the applicant to various placed and that sexual intercourse was also on account of consent.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.