( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3939 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2009 Nanasaheb s/o. Rangnath Gaikwad .. Applicant Age. 37 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Vita, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 07.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for bail given by accused person who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 188 of 2008 on 18.09.2009, of offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the I.P.C. and thereby the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. ( 2 ) 1000/- for the offence punishable under section 376 of the I.P.C. and for the offence punishable under section 506 of the I.P.C. the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Heard Adv. Shri N.S. Ghanekar for the applicant and A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for the respondents. In this case it is stated that the prosecutrix and her mother were on the way to Hingne Kannad. On the way the mother went ahead and the prosecutrix went to visit her uncle. By that time mother of the prosecutrix had gone to a long distance. When the prosecutrix was alone and was going by road, the accused said to have dragged her, put soil in her month and raped her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went back to the field where her uncle was present. As per evidence of the uncle, the prosecutrix was having Odhni and Kurta stained with blood and she was weeping. She was not saying anything. Therefore, uncle took the prosecutrix to his house and asked his wife to enquire. Then, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her aunt. Thereafter, complaint was lodged. 3. The main point which is argued before me is that ( 3 ) the prosecutrix did not disclose description of the accused or his name, but only said that he was person of 35-40 years of age. Prior to coming to the police station, uncle of the prosecutrix had made telephone and gave information about the incident to the police. Police had arrested the accused and brought him to the police station, when the complaint was being recorded. At that time when the accused was shown to the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix identified him. It is argued that no sufficient description was given and as such identification was not sufficient. 4. This is not a stage to re-appreciate the evidence in detail. Suffice it, if we consider mental condition of a raped girl on that day. She would not have identified any person other than the real culprit. Moreover, the learned A.P.P. has also submitted that there is also other corroborative evidence of a person who has seen the accused near that place at the relevant time. 5. Apart from it, the accused was not released on bail during the Trial and after conviction, chances of absconding of accused are more. In the circumstances, this application ( 4 ) cannot be allowed as the accused is likely to jump bail, if released on bail. Therefore, the application for bail is dismissed. However, the appeal can be heard expeditiously as there are very few jail matters with this Court. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3939.09