1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2746 OF 2009 Vilas Bhagwan Shinde & Ors .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Rahul S. Kate for the applicants Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATE : 10th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. Not on board. Taken on board. 2. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicants were heard on the earlier date. I also heard learned APP for the state. The applicants are being prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Section 376, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(ii) and 6 of the Schedule Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The application for bail made by the applicants have been rejected by the Session Rma appln2746­09.sxw 2 Court. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants have invited my attention to the statement of the first informant. I have perused the said statement. The age of the first informant is said to be 30 years. She is resident of a village. She has stated that she was residing with her son, daughter in law, daughter and younger son. She stated that on 3rd April, 2009, she was sleeping in front of her house. Her son, daughter in law and her younger son were also sleeping there. At 1.00 am, the applicants visited her residence. The allegation is that the first applicant committed offence of rape against her. At that time, the 2nd and 3rd applicant were standing at the door. Her case is that before the said offence was committed, the accused started giving her kicks and fist blows and therefore, her sons, daughter in law and daughter went out of the house. She has stated that she belongs to Paradhi community and the first applicant belongs to higher caste. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as far as offence under Section 376 is concerned, the specific role has been ascribed only to the first applicant. His submission is that it is difficult Rma appln2746­09.sxw 3 to believe that the incident took place when the married son of the prosecutrix, her daughter in law and her younger son were sleeping along with the prosecutrix. He has invited my attention to the decision in Session Case No. 14 of 2003 wherein other accused were prosecuted on the basis of similar allegations made by the prosecutrix. He pointed out that prosecutrix did not support prosecution and was declared hostile. 5. A charge sheet has already been filed. As far as 2nd and 3rd applicants are concerned, allegation is that they were standing at the door when the first applicant committed offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the statement of prosecutrix shows that her daughter in law and married son were present. They simply went out after the entry of accused. There is no alarm raised by the married son and the daughter in law of the prosecutrix. All this creates a doubt about the prosecution case. The prosecutrix had made similar allegation of commission of similar offence against some other persons. In the said case, she turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Moreover, the medical reports in the present case do not Rma appln2746­09.sxw 4 fully support the theory of prosecutrix. Hence applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail, especially when there are no antecedents pointed out. Hence, I pass the following order: O R D E R 1. The first applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 15000/­ (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to the condition that the said applicant will report to Karmala Police Station once in every week till conclusion of trial. 2. The 2nd and 3rd applicants shall be enlarged on the bail in sum of Rs. 7500/­ each (Rs. Seven Thousand Five Hundred each) with one or two sureties with like amount subject to the condition that they will report to the concerned police station once in every calender month till disposal of the trial. 3. The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence or pressurize the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the trial. Rma appln2746­09.sxw 5 4. If any breach is committed by the applicants, the same may be the ground for cancellation of the bail. JUDGE Rma appln2746­09.sxw