1 13.apln2026-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2026 OF 2010 Nana s/o. Dala Dhage. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.R.D. Biradar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for sometime on this application for regular bail preferred by the applicant for his release on bail during pendency of the matter for the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the present case are rather peculiar in nature. The applicant is the real father of the victim girl aged 2 13.apln2026-10 about 10 years. On 9.8.2009 when the girl was alone in the house, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Immediately a complaint was lodged by the girl when she was taken to the police station by the wife of the accused i.e. mother of the girl. Immediately the accused was put under arrest. The medical examination of the girl and the applicant was conducted. The medical examination of the girl reveals sexual intercourse and injuries on the private parts so also presence of the blood on the private parts. On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 23.10.2009. Earlier two separate applications were preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge and both were rejected mainly considering the factual position as narrated above. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that since August, 2009 the applicant is in custody and as such he may be granted bail. Merely the accused is in the custody for about 11 months cannot be a ground for releasing him on bail when the allegations are of 3 13.apln2026-10 peculiar nature and also when those are supported by medical evidence which is prima facie sufficient to establish commission of offence. Still considering that the applicant is the real father of the prosecutrix girl and other witnesses are his own family members, tampering of evidence at his hands cannot be ruled out as opined by the Sessions Court. In any event, it is not a fit case in which the applicant can be released on bail during pendency of the trial and at the most the trial can be expedited. Hence, the order :- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2026 of 2010 for regular bail stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. [ii] The learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter shall dispose of the case as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from receipt of this order. The learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the observations made while 4 13.apln2026-10 passing this order so far as merits of the case are concerned. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) ppd