does not constitute offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) or Section 3(1) (w)(i) of the Act of 1989. Therefore, there is no statutory bar as prescribed under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act of 1989 for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The appellant-accused has no nexus or proximity with the alleged crime of sexual assault on the prosecutrix. There are vague and omnibus allegations that appellant-accused helped her brother accused Lakhan for committing the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. According to learned Senior Advocate, the appellant-accused is the resident of Hadapsar, Pune. During relevant period of February, 2019 she was admitted in Katariya Hospital, Gandhi Chowk, Daund for delivery purpose. Learned Senior Advocate submits that on 1302-2019, the appellant-accused gave birth to one female child. He produced the birth certificate of newly born baby issued by the concerned Hospital dated 17-02-2019. According to learned Senior Advocate, appellant-accused has no any involvement in the alleged crime, but with malafide intention prosecutrix embroiled her by making false allegation in this case. The attending circumstances on record are not sufficient to make out the offence under the provisions of Act of 1989. There is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the appellant-accused, who is mother of newly born sucking child. Therefore, he requested to grant relief of pre-arrest bail in favour of appellant-accused.
