JUDGMENT;- The applicant was arrested on 17th October 2013 in C.R. No.388/2013 registered with Dindoshi Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 376, 354(A), 420, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant alleges that after marriage was fixed between her and the applicant a formal ceremony was performed on 4th June 2012. Thereafter both started meeting each other at different places. Twice during such meetings i.e. on 9th July 2012 and on 27th July 2012, the applicant had sexual intercourse with her against her wish. Thereafter he broke the marriage and has married another girl. 3. Mr. Jariwala the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint filed is an absolutely false complaint. The marriage between the two had been cancelled after holding meeting of both the families. Thereafter in fact, complainant had advertised herself for the marriage in a magazine published by the community to which both belong. The reason, according to the applicant for breaking the marriage was the conduct of the complainant. It is alleged that the representation made that the complainant was a beautician by profession was false. She works in film industry and television as a backstage artist and was in relationship with one Mohit Khan a choreographer and editor of some serials. When her intimacy with Mohit Khan was found out, she made a pretence of giving it up but had in fact continued. Therefore, on 7th October 2012 a meeting of family members of both called and the proposed marriage was broken up. The complainant thereafter started harassing the applicant by taking help of police. She had approached the Commissioner of Police and National Human Rights Centre during the period January, 2013 to June 2013. In none of those several complaints, there is so much as a whisper about sexual assault. There are also advocates notices exchanged between the parties. The applicant has also produced copies of all such complaints as also the notices exchanged between the parties through their advocates. 4. Perusal of various complaints and advocates notices shows that at no place the complainant has made allegations about sexually assault at the hands of the applicant. What is alleged in those complaints is that there were demands made by the applicant and his family for gifts to be given during marriage. Mrs. 4. Perusal of various complaints and advocates notices shows that at no place the complainant has made allegations about sexually assault at the hands of the applicant. What is alleged in those complaints is that there were demands made by the applicant and his family for gifts to be given during marriage. Mrs. Sonawane, learned A.P.P. submits that continued custody of the applicant is required because the investigation into the offence is yet not complete and also because the police apprehend that the applicant may influence the witnesses. She further submits that if at all the applicant is to be released on bail, he shall be subjected to stringent conditions. He should not be permitted to enter into the area where the witnesses and the complainant reside. 5. Perusal of the entire correspondence and the complaints made by the complainant to the police as well as to the Human Rights Centre shows that there is not even a whisper about the sexual assault in those complaints. The complainant is present in person and has addressed the Court. According to her, she did not disclose sexual assault in her complaints because she was looking forward to the marriage with the applicant and if she were to make any such allegation, he would not have married her. There can be no substance in such an explanation. There is serious doubt as regards the allegations of sexual assault made by the complainant. In any case, the applicant has been in the custody since 17th October 2013 and justification given by the learned A.P.P. for continued custody cannot be accepted. 6. The application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required by the police. He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the court or to any police officer. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. The parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. Application allowed.