JUDGMENT- VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this application, a two - fold relief is sought:- (i) to grant bail to the applicant in C.R. No. 61 of 1999 under sections 385, 386, 366, 376, 452, 506(2), 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 34 I.P.C. r/w section 3 and 25(1) of the Arms Act of Bijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur; and (ii) to quash C.R. No. 61 of 1999 of Bijapur Naka Police Station and the proceedings arising therefrom. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. D.B. Bhosale stated that with regard to prayer (ii) set out as prayer (b) in the application he would prefer a separate petition. Consequently, Mr. Bhosale is only pressing prayer (i) (set out as prayer (c) in the application). 2.The factual matrix from which prayer for bail arises in short is as under:-- The prosecutrix Fatima Shabin Nazir Ahmad Shaikh is aged about 20 years. She was known to the applicant ever since 1996 when he visited her house while contesting the Lok-Sabha elections. She regarded him as her maternal uncle. In September, 1997, her father sold out the house at Shara Nagar and decided to reside in Laxmi Nagar, Jule, Solapur. In November, 1997 he started constructing his house and it appears that the applicant gave him Rs. 12,00,000/- for the said purpose. The applicant used to visit the prosecutrix and her parents and was insisting with the latter to get her married to him. When he expressed this desire, her father asked him not to visit their place. In January, 1999, the prosecutrix along with her parents shifted to the new house. The applicant thereafter came and asked her father to give back Rs. 12,00,000/-. Her father paid Rs. 4,00,000/-. The applicant went away threatening him to pay the balance within 2/3 days. One day in the last week of April, 1999, while the prosecutrix and her mother were alone in the house, the applicant came and threatened her mother either to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- or get her married to him. When she resisted, he threatened her. He made a phone call and within 10 to 15 minutes, 6 to 7 persons armed with knives and crow bars came. The applicant was having a revolver. The applicant on the point of the revolver, forcibly took her in a car on the Pune Road. 8,00,000/- or get her married to him. When she resisted, he threatened her. He made a phone call and within 10 to 15 minutes, 6 to 7 persons armed with knives and crow bars came. The applicant was having a revolver. The applicant on the point of the revolver, forcibly took her in a car on the Pune Road. She reprimanded him saying that if he continued harassing her, she would open the door and jump. Hence he brought her back. On 4-5-1999, at about 4 p.m. while the prosecutrix was at her aunty's place, the applicant came armed with a revolver and on the point of a revolver took her for marriage to Mumbai. He told her parents that they should reach Mumbai at the house of one Taurani in Oshiwara, Mumbai. The applicant and the prosecutrix reached Mumbai on 5-5-1999 at 4 p.m. and the same night at 11.30 p.m. the parents of the prosecutrix also reached there. He told them that the kazi could not be arranged and the marriage would be performed the next day. He also purchased some wedding clothes and ornaments for the prosecutrix, much against her wishes. On 6-5-1999, the applicant told her that he wanted to marry her, made an affidavit of his conversion at Bandra, acquiring the name of Mohammed Rafi; and forcibly took her to Ashirwad Vivah Stal where he coerced her to get a marriage registered. Thereafter, he took her in a car to Khandala for honey moon. When she did not relent to have sexual intercourse with him, he beat her. On 9-5-1999, he returned with her to Solapur and the same night, he raped her, and continued raping her till 17-5-1999, on which date he told her that they would go and reside at Hyderabad, where they would purchase a plot. At Hyderabad also, he raped her and asked her to get Rs. 20,00,000/- from her father for purchasing a plot. Three days later, he came back with her to Solapur. On 4-6-1999, fed up with this torture, when her father went to Bijapur Naka police station to lodge an F.I.R., the applicant threatened him that in case he lodged it, he would kill his son Altaf. Consequently, accompanied with the police, her father came back. On seeing the police, the applicant sped away in a car. On 4-6-1999, fed up with this torture, when her father went to Bijapur Naka police station to lodge an F.I.R., the applicant threatened him that in case he lodged it, he would kill his son Altaf. Consequently, accompanied with the police, her father came back. On seeing the police, the applicant sped away in a car. 3.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 5-6-1999 at 11.35 p.m. by the prosecutrix Fatima at the Bijapur Naka Police Station and in the said F.I.R., the applicant is named and the facts mentioned in the proceeding para have been enumerated. 4.Mr. D.B. Bhosale learned counsel for the applicant strenuously urged that the averments in the F.I.R. are false and fabricated. He urged that no extortion was made by the applicant; and the claim of the prosecutrix that the applicant had forcible sexual intercourse with her was a dressed-up one. He also urged that it appears that the prosecutrix on her own volition had sexual intercourse with the applicant and lodged a false F.I.R. against the applicant so that her father may avoid paying Rs. 8,00,000/- to the applicant. He also urged that some political rivals of the applicant were also instrumental in the lodging of F.I.R. because, they wanted to tarnish the image of the applicant. 5.I have reflected over the said submissions canvassed by Mr. Bhosale. At this stage, I find it difficult to accept that no demand was made by the applicant. I also find it difficult to accept that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to marriage and to the sexual intercourse which was committed by the applicant upon her several times. Had she been a consenting party, then she would not have lodged the said F.I.R. against him. At this stage, I also find it difficult to believe that simply to ensure that her father would not have to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- to the applicant, she came out with a false F.I.R. as a result whereof her reputation would be tarnished and the prospects of her marriage blasted. 6.It is well - settled that at the stage of bail, this Court examines the matter from the stand point of a prima facie case and does not enter into a thread-bare analysis of the merits of the matter. That analysis is done at the trial and appellate stage. 6.It is well - settled that at the stage of bail, this Court examines the matter from the stand point of a prima facie case and does not enter into a thread-bare analysis of the merits of the matter. That analysis is done at the trial and appellate stage. 7.In my view, if prima facie, the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are examined, they demonstrate that in a very blatant manner, the applicant who is a member of the Legislative Assembly, on the point of force, coercion, revolver and threat to the life of the family members of the prosecutrix, married her and committed rape on her. Persons like the applicant who are representatives of the people in the Legislative Assembly, are expected to conform to high standards and not to be carried by the lust of sex and behave in beastly manner, as the applicant behaved. To say the least, the conduct of the applicant is reprehensible. Persons like him till they can curb their sexual instincts, should remain in jail. 8.Apart from the above, I find from a perusal of the order dated 17-7-1999 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, refusing bail to the applicant, that previously 39 offences have been registered against the applicant at various police stations in Solapur District and at present, 17 of them are pending against him in criminal courts in Solapur. This demonstrates that the applicant repeatedly, in a brazen-faced manner exploited his position as a member of the Legislative Assembly and continued committing offences with impunity. It is a trite that bail is not granted to those who perpetually abuse it. 9.A perusal of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur refusing bail to the applicant, also shows that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, the life of the prosecutrix and her family members, who are presently under police protection, would be endangered and the applicant would make every endeavour to finish the case against him. The Additional Public Prosecutor informs me that if the applicant is granted bail, the prosecution evidence would be tampered. 10.For the said reasons, in my view, the applicant has not made out any case for the grant of bail and he should cool his heels in jail. I accordingly, reject his prayer for bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor informs me that if the applicant is granted bail, the prosecution evidence would be tampered. 10.For the said reasons, in my view, the applicant has not made out any case for the grant of bail and he should cool his heels in jail. I accordingly, reject his prayer for bail. It is clarified that the observations made by me in this order are only limited to the disposal of this application and would not influence the trial Court when it decides the trial of the applicant. -----