Amar Mukund Panchal v. The State Of Maharashtra

BDP-SPS-TAC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2397 OF 2021 by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2021.12.17 13:05:22 +0530 MR. AMAR MUKUND PANCHAL ....Applicant.

V/s THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .....Respondent Mr. Harshad Sathe a/w Mr. Saurabh Butala for the Applicant. Ms. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2021 P.C.:- 1] Prosecution case is, victim, a divorcee, was misrepresented by the Applicant that he is unmarried on a dating site, established love relation and sexually exploited her.

2] Contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant is, Applicant' s status as that of married man was known to the Applicant and same can be inferred from the chat messages, so also interaction of the victim with the wife of the Applicant. As such, according to him, it is only after differences, Applicant is falsely implicated. 1/3

3] Learned APP opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the ground that Applicant misrepresented social status of the Applicant and sexually exploited divorcee woman.

4] Considered submissions.

5] Applicant, though a married person blessed with a child, has registered himself on Dating App, perhaps showing his status as that of unmarried person and established physical as well as love relation with the victim. Even if it is demonstrated from the messages that the victim has an interaction through chat messages with the wife of the Applicant, some messages connote misrepresentation made by the Applicant about his social status. It cannot be in clear words inferred that Applicant, a married person, has registered himself on Dating Site, thereby giving his status as married man and still indulged into an act of dating with victim. The chatting with the wife of the Applicant by the victim prompts this Court to believe that victim has always objected to the conduct of the Applicant, as he has suppressed his social status.

2/3

6] As such, no case for pre-arrest bail is made out. Application stands rejected.

7] At the request of Counsel for the Applicant, ad-interim protection order is continued for a period of four weeks from today. 8] Application is disposed of.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 3/3