1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3143 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.427 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Smt.S.S.Jadhav Advocate for the applicant and Shri B.V.Wagh, APP, for Respondent-State. 2. This is an application for bail filed by accused who is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 448 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 376, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence punishable under section 448 IPC he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/= in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 3. It is the prosecutions case that on 27.8.2006 at about 11.00 p.m. when the 2 prosecutrix was sleeping on a cot and husband was sleeping at some distance, the accused-appellant came and threatened them with knife and then forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 4. In support of the prosecution case, there is evidence of prosecutrix herself and her husband and there was no other witness. The incident had taken place at about 11.00 p.m. on 27.8.2006 and the complaint is lodged on 30.8.2006. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that the delay is properly explained. The husband of the prosecutrix was ill and only on arrival of her in-laws she lodged complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken me through the evidence of prosecutrix and her husband. There is evidence of Dr. Chausalkar. Prosecutrix is admittedly a married woman. The medical certificate issued by doctor at Exh.16 did not show any stains on the clothes or any injuries. The certificate indicates that the prosecutrix was within 14 to 6 years of age as per radiological opinion. The detail scrutiny of evidence is not permissible at this stage. Both, prosecutrix and her husband, have supported 3 the incident and they are believed by the Sessions Judge. It cannot be said that there is no prima facie case. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case of Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P. 2001 AIRSCW 5130 and more particularly on paragraph 3 wherein it is observed that in case of short term sentence, sentence should be suspended and rejection of bail should be exceptional inasmuch as if short term sentence is allowed to run during pendency of appeal, the appeal itself will become for all practical purposes infructuous so far as appellant is concerned. 7. In the present case, sentence awarded is of seven years. In my considered opinion present is not a case to exercise discretion of bail in favour of the applicant-accused. 8. Hence, application for bail dismissed. However, hearing of the appeal is expedited. Date:05/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criap3143.09