jpc ba714-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 714 OF 2011 Azharali Ahmedali Shaikh ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. N. S. Ghag i/by Mr. Prashant Aher for the applicant Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 24th June, 2011. P.C. : 1. The applicant has been arrested on 31/1/2011 on the allegation of having committed offences under Sections 376, 328 and 506 of the Indian Penal code. 2. Heard Mr. N. S. Ghat for the applicant and Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. 3. I have gone through the F.I.R. and glanced through the charge sheet, copy of which have been annexed to the bail application. It is clear from the F.I.R. that the prosecutrix and the jpc ba714-11.sxw 2 applicant were known to each other since three years prior to the alleged incident. It is also clear that the applicant was known, not only to the prosecutrix, but, also to the mother of the prosecutrix. It also appears that the prosecutrix was able to get some jobs with the help of the applicant. On 22/1/2011, the prosecutrix went with the applicant with the permission of her mother at 9.30 p.m. It is significant that the mother of the prosecutrix permitted her to go with the applicant at 9.30 p.m. It also appears that the applicant and the prosecutrix were to wait in one hotel room for some time, till the shooting would be over. 4. Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix has narrated the incident which, according to her, took place after 11.30 p.m. Undoubtedly, she does say that she did not consent for the act and, therefore, it cannot be said that there exists no prima facie case against the applicant. The fact, however, remains that the applicant is in custody since 31st January, 2011. It appears that the prosecutrix has subsequently addressed a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Thane Rural, stating that the F.I.R. against the applicant was lodged due to some misunderstanding jpc ba714-11.sxw 3 and that she actually did not know who had performed the act in question, as she was drowsy when the alleged incident took place. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I think it fit to release the applicant on bail. 5. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in like amount or cash of Rs.30,000/- in-lieu of surety, on the condition that he shall not contact, meet or approach any of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner whatsoever. 6. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and endavour to complete it within a period of one year from today. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)