1 APPLN 4112 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4112 OF 2010. Hira Sundardas Bulani .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Sou. Archana Jayramdas Bhatija .. Intervener. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Advocate i/b Kamlesh Ghumre and Gaurav Belosay, for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State Mr. Subhash Jha, advocate for the intervener. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 7th October, 2010 P.C. 1. This is an application for bail by accused, who has been arrested in crime No.160 of 2010 registered at Ulhasnagar Police station, for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix is 42 years old lady. She claims that on the day of incident i.e at 5.00 p.m., when her friend one Dropadi was in her house, she had gone for taking bath. Dropadi suddenly left because of phone call from her husband. Before Dropadi left, the applicant entered the victim’s house. The prosecutrix came out 2 APPLN 4112 OF 2010.sxw of the bath-room only in under garments. The door between the sitting room and bed room was not latched from inside. The applicant went inside, pushed the prosecutrix on the bed and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. His semen dropped on the bed sheet. The prosecutrix made report of the incident immediately thereafter. An offence was registered. But nothing was heard and therefore, the prosecutrix approached the Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 30th July, 2010, the Division Bench of this Court sought progress report in the matter. On 4th August, 2010 applicant was arrested. Bed sheet as well as other exhibits collected by the police were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the Laboratory has been made available for my perusal by the learned counsel for applicant, who claims that it was given to him by some other police officers and it shows that there were no semen stains on the bed sheet or other items collected. Learned APP states that investigation is almost complete and only chargesheet remained to be filed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, who states that a false case has been lodged at the instance of Mr. Anil Jaysinghani with whom the applicant had some disputes. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix submitted that the prosecutrix has nothing to do with Jaisinghani. In any case disputes which applicant refers have no bearing on the matter. Learned counsel for the 3 APPLN 4112 OF 2010.sxw applicant states that the incident occurred at about 5.40 pm in crowded locality. He submits that the weight of the prosecutrix is about 85 kg as per medical report. Therefore, it would be difficult to imagine that the applicant could overpower the prosecutrix and committ rape. He submits that had the prosecutrix offered some resistance and or raised some cries, neighbours would have heard some noise. 3. The learned counsel for the prosecutrix states that as the television was on, neighbours could not have heard the noise of the prosecutrix and in any case, one Dropadi the friend of prosecutrix was present at the house of prosecutrix, who has identified the applicant at test identification parade. 4. Considering the circumstances enumerated above and since the investigation is almost complete, applicant’s being in custody pending trial may not be necessary, therefore, without commenting any of the circumstances and arguments advanced by learned counsel, it would be sufficient to direct the applicant to be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.50,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall attend the police station concerned on first and third Sunday of the month between 10.00 a.m, 1.00 p.m., till the trial is over. The applicant shall himself stay away from the prosecutrix and from all other 4 APPLN 4112 OF 2010.sxw prosecution witnesses, and shall not attempt to tamper the evidence. 5. The learned counsel for the prosecutrix seeks stay of the order for a period of one week. There is no need to stay the order and if the superior Court finds it proper and fit to set aside the order passed by this Court, the applicant could always be taken in custody. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)