2510appln1642.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1642 of 2010 Ishwarlal Mukanaramji Varma and ors ...vs.. State of Mah, through PSO P.S.Telhara. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.S.D.Chopde, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.J.B.Jaiswal, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 25 th October, 2010. Heard Mr.Chopde, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the report filed on 19/9/2010 is nothing but an outcome of an attempt of the prosecutrix, who failed to receive an amount which was demanded by her and refused by the present applicants. The learned counsel further submits that the allegations are only against one Jitendra Verma and there is no role attributed to the present applicants. 3. Reply is filed by the State. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the material. In a report it is specifically stated that one Jitendra Verma had developed intimacy with the prosecutrix while she was taking education. It is further stated in the report that on the assurance of marriage Jitendra Verma exploited her sexually. Further 2510appln1642.10.odt 2 portion of the report states that the applicants were insisting the prosecutrix for terminating the pregnancy. In the report it is also specifically stated that at Telhara, these applicants confined the victim in one room and administrated some medicine for terminating her pregnancy. There are also allegations against applicant Shivkumar that he tried to outrage modesty of the victim. Prima faice material is sufficient to connect the applicants with the crime and their role played in the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicants have submitted an oral report to the Police Station, Telhara on 4/9/2010 that the victim was demanding money. When asked, learned Advocate Mr.Chopde was unable to reply as to what prevented the applicants to submit the report in writing in the Police Station when the applicants are literate persons. 6. In view of the record produced by the prosecution/Investigating Agency, there is enough prima facie material against the applicants. In my opinion, this is not the fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. The investigation is in progress. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE chute