1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 453/2011 Laxman Bhivaji Rajpure ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Pathari, Tah. Saoli, Distt. Chandrapur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M. A. Bapat, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the non-applicant CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 19.9.2011. 1. Heard Mr. M. A. Bapat, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. N. R. Rode, learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 25/04/2011 in Pathari Police Station, Crime No. 09/2011, registered for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application for bail. 3. As per the report lodged by prosecutrix, she was 13 years old at the time of incident on 18/04/2011, on which date the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. 4. The applicant has stated in the application that he is 65 years old person having two married daughters and other 2 children, and is not supposed to do such act at this stage of life and that the Medical Officer also could not collect semen from him and this suggests that a false case has been filed. He has also stated that no injuries were found on the prosecutrix and that no injuries are found on the penis of the applicant and other parts of his body. The applicant therefore says that he is entitled for bail. 5. In the reply, the respondent has stated that in addition to the statement of the prosecutrix, there is statement of Ku. Nandini Ramdas Khobragade which shows that the applicant and prosecutrix were seen together at the spot of occurrence. It is further stated in the reply that medical evidence is favorable to the prosecution. The respondent fears that the applicant, if released on bail, would pressurize the prosecution witnesses since they are from the same village and may also pressurize the prosecutrix who is also from the same village. 6. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix prima facie but clearly reveals that the applicant has committed rape on her. As per the medical evidence, the applicant is unable to emit semen. However, the medical evidence clearly states that he is capable of sexual intercourse and may commit rape. The medical evidence in respect of prosecutrix reveals that her hymen is ruptured. Though the tear is old, it is not known as to how old it is. 3 7. Considering the evidence of the prosecutrix herself and other evidence collected by the prosecution and the fact that there is a fear that the applicant may tamper with the prosecution evidence, in my view the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage. Since the charge-sheet has already been filed, the trial can be expedited. 8. In the result, the application is rejected with the direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial. 9. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Punde.