1409ba482.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 482 OF 2011 (Sandeep Prabhakar Dhore Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A. S. Bhendarkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM: U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 14TH SEPT., 2011 The applicant, who has been arrested on 28/5/2011 in Crime No. 65/2011 registered by M.I.D.C. Police Station, Nagpur, for offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(g) (e), 120B, 506 Part-II and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), has filed this application for bail. The complaint which gave rise to the said crime was lodged by the victim lady herself. According to the complainant, on 24/5/2011 at about 10.30 p.m., accused Durgesh Tiwari took her on motorcycle to his room from her house alleging that her husband Vishwakarma is under the influence of liquor and he is calling her in the room. The complainant has further stated that the room was found to have been locked from outside and she saw her husband sleeping inside the room and when she asked for the key of the room, accused Durgesh gave the key, but at the same time caught her from behind and called Sandip (present applicant). It is further alleged by the victim that Sandip caught 1409ba482.11.odt 2/3 her saree, put it in her mouth and pressed it and thereafter, initially Sandip and thereafter Durgesh committed rape on her. In the present application, the applicant states that nexus of the applicant with the crime is not disclosed and there is no mens rea for the applicant. It is alleged by the applicant that there is delay of two days in lodging the complaint. It is also contended that the allegation that rape was committed in front of the closed door of the room attached to the open public road is not believable. It is further pointed out in the application that no alarm was raised by the victim. In short, the contention of the applicant is that there is no prima facie evidence against him, and therefore, he is entitled for bail. In the reply, the respondent, while resisting the application, has alleged that the statements of the victim and other witnesses and the fact of seizure of motorcycle, clearly reveals involvement of the present applicant along with other co-accused. It is also stated in the reply that the medical report goes against the present applicant which shows that victim was raped. It is pointed out in the reply that the victim was pregnant at the relevant time, and therefore, the crime is heinous and grave. Heard arguments. Learned Advocate Shri Bhendarkar argued on behalf of the applicant and learned A.P.P. Shri Rode argued on behalf of the respondent-State. Perusal of the complaint of the victim girl clearly reveals involvement of the present applicant along with co-accused Durgesh and there is strong prima facie evidence against both 1409ba482.11.odt 3/3 these persons to hold that they committed gang rape on the pregnant victim. The medical evidence reveals that there was forcible intercourse committed on the victim and that the applicant as well as other co-accused were capable of committing sexual intercourse. The contentions raised by the applicant in his application and advanced by the learned Advocate during arguments are defences which would be dealt with at the appropriate time. However, it is to be mentioned here that the question of mens rea does not arise in the case of rape as the same is out of lust for sex. The punishment provided for such gang rape is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but it may be for life and also fine. In addition to the gravity of the offence, the fact remains that the victim is pregnant. The offence of rape is not only against a woman but it is against the society at large and requires to be dealt with seriously. Since there is strong prima facie evidence against the applicant, in my view, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE wwl