Bombay High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>M.G. Sewikar, J., denied bail to the applicant accused of deceiving the prosecutrix by giving false promise of marriage who submitted herself for sexual intercourse based on the misconception of facts.<\/p>\n The present application was filed for grant of anticipatory bail for offences registered under Sections 376, 417, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860.<\/p>\n Informant aged 20 years used to go for labour work at a poultry farm, where she got acquainted with the applicant and promised to marry her.<\/p>\n Applicant had sexual intercourse with the informant twice under the promise of marriage.<\/p>\n About 2 months before the filing of the FIR, the applicant called her and demanded sexual favour from the informant, but she denied on the pretext getting married. Applicant got enraged and beat her.<\/p>\n Later, the informant learnt that the applicant was already married.<\/p>\n Counsel for the applicant, R.S. Shinde and V.S. Badakh, APP for the State.<\/p>\n From the FIR filed, it is apparent that the prosecutrix gave consent for the sexual intercourse as the applicant promised to marry her.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Whether the consent of the prosecutrix was a voluntary consent or it was a consent-based on the misconception of facts?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nQuestion to be determined:<\/span><\/h4>\n