{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3491 OF 2009 Jaywant @ Prakash s/o Vasudeo Wankhede, Age-60 years, Occ-Business R/o Main Road, Saraf Bazar, Sakri, Dist-Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police, Dhule RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.G.Ladda, Advocate for the applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondents / State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 10th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant, who is an accused in CR No.108/2009 registered with Sakri Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 376, 511 r/w 506 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the applicant has raped his grand daughter from his daughter, has prayed that he be released on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the {2} arguments of learned APP appearing for the respondents State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that it is alleged that the alleged incident, of sexual abuse of the victim at the hands of the applicant, occurred between 20.04.2009 and 03.05.2009 when the applicant, along with his daughter and the victim, had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of the applicant’s son and the said fact is allegedly disclosed by the victim to her paternal grand mother, who in turn disclosed the same to the complainant. It is contended that though the alleged incident occurred between last week of April and first week of May, yet the compliant is lodged in the month of August 2009 i.e. after a period of 4 months and during that period the mother of the victim and wife of the complainant, who was staying with the complainant, was taken away by the applicant, after submitting an application to the Kherwadi police station on 31.07.2009. Even at that time also, there was no disclosure of the sexual abuse at the hands of the applicant. 4. The applicant has prayed that he be released on bail mainly on three grounds. Firstly, that there is delay of 4 months in lodging the complaint, secondly, the place where the alleged incident has taken place was a place of marriage and the same was a crowded place and the victim might not have kept mum instead of making hue and cry and thirdly due to the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his daughter i.e. mother of the victim {3} and as the complainant is a court employee he has taken advantage of his knowledge of the court functioning and falsely implicated the applicant in the alleged offence at his advanced age. 4. After considering the submissions and perusal of the compliant it is clear that this compliant is lodged after 4 months of the occurrence of the alleged incident. Though much hue and cry is made in respect of the delay, yet considering the tendency of the Indian community where reputation of a female is protected until the last breath, it appears that the complainant might have waited for making himself sure that such a heinous crime is really committed and after seeing the medical reports he has lodged the complaint. Medical papers on record clearly indicate history and signs of sexual abuse on the poor helpless victim of hardly 6 years of age. This appears to be an unfortunate incident where the person, who is suppose to be the protector has himself attacked the victim. During the course of investigation the child was also referred to the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist gave his opinion of the behaviour of the victim, it is noted by the psychiatrist that the victim is fearing to accompany her mother as she is afraid that the mother may take her to the village of her grand father. It is also opined that there is fear in the mind of the victim of the sexual abuses at the hands of the applicant. Statement of the victim came to be recorded twice during the course of investigation i.e. one by the police officer and another by the psychiatrist. The said statements indicate that the victim was sexually abused by the {4} applicant. Considering the overall facts and the evidence collected during the investigation, prima faice, it cannot be said that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. 5. In the result, the applicant does not deserve liberty and discretion for releasing him on bail. Consequently, the application is rejected. 6. It is, however, clarified that the above observations are prima facie and the court below shall not to influenced with the same while dealing with application for regular bail, if preferred by the applicant. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3491-09