( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1421 of 2008 RAJIV RAM BHADBHADE ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents. Mr V.T. Tulpule i/b Harshad Bhadbhade, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 09.06.2008. DATED : 09.06.2008. DATED : 09.06.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the application and material available on record. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.64 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 323, 376, 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code registered with Miraj Police Station. ( 2 ) 3. The applicant is a doctor by profession and is also attached to Dr Sortur’s Hospital at Miraj. 4. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that the applicant had already moved for anticipatory bail vide application No. 2833 of 2005 to this Court. The said application was strongly opposed by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, which was rejected by an order dated 8th and 11th July, 2005 by learned Single Judge (Shri Oka, J) holding it to be not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act). While rejecting application, learned Single Judge specifically mentioned that he did not examine merits of the case. In other words, application was rejected merely because of the bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, though the investigation was complete as per the statement made by the Advocate General. 5. The present applicant, thereafter, filed ( 3 ) Writ Petition No.2160 of 2005 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to get F.I.R. quashed on the ground that it does not disclose any offence. 6. However, one of the learned Judges of the Learned Division Bench did not agree with the view taken by earlier Division Bench in the case of Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni Vs State of Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni Vs State of Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 778 (Cri) 778 (Cri) 778, with the result, the learned Division Bench directed that the matter be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constitution of Full Bench and directed police to investigate crime alleged against the applicant and take all necessary steps that may be necessary to complete the investigation for the offences other than offence alleged under the Atrocities Act. In other words, offence alleged under the Atrocities Act is concerned, it was sought to be kept in abeyance till the matter is referred and decided by the Larger Bench, whereas liberty was given to investigate offences alleged under Sections 323, 376 and 376(d) of the I.P.C. are concerned. ( 4 ) 7. In view of the matter, the applicant has moved the present application for anticipatory bail contending that anticipatory bail application can be considered vis-a-vis offences under Sections 323, 376 and 376 (2)(d) are concerned since the alleged offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, 1989 is not to be investigated. 8. So far as maintainability of application is concerned, the learned A.P.P. did not canvass any submission. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was taken up for consideration by this Court holding it to be maintainable in view of the change in circumstance in view of the order of the learned Division Bench dated 3.4.2008. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant took me through the F.I.R. and brought to my notice that the complained act referable to Section 376 alleged to have been committed by the applicant on 25.12.2000, whereas the complaint has been made to the Police for the first time in the month of March, 2005 i.e. after five years. ( 5 ) The prosecutrix was working as a nurse with the present applicant. The prosecutrix is major married woman. If the acts alleged against the applicant referable to the offence under Sections 376, 376 (2) (d) of the I.P.C., went on for five years, one has to put a question asking for cause of delay in reporting the matter to the police. Why she did not resign from her job? Why did she continue to work with such person, who was playing with her honour and respect. No answer is to be found. Much can be read in the facts and circumstances of the case. The investigation was complete in the moth of June, 2005 as is clear from the statement made by the learned Advocate General referred to in the order whereby first application for anticipatory bail was rejected in view of the bar under the Atrocities Act. 10. On being asked, learned A.P.P. submits that only two witnesses are to be examined in the trial against the present applicant. Both of them are the close relatives of the prosecutrix. If that be so, learned counsel for the applicant ( 6 ) is right in submitting that, if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, hardly there would be any chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence or pressurising the witnesses who are close relatives of the prosecutrix. 11. Having seen the material and circumstances available on record, the status of the applicant in the society, delay in filing the F.I.R. and her continuous assocation with the applicant inspite of absence of any adverse circumstance and that absence of possibility of his jumping the bail, I am inclined to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of the charge sheet and/or till the decision of the Full Bench whichever is earlier. The applicant shall surrender before the regular Court to obtain regular bail. 12. In the result, application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant, be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two local solvent sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant shall attend I.O. once in a month on ( 7 ) 4th Saturday between 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. and also as and when called. In the event of arrest within one week the applicant may furnish cash security but if arrested after one week then he can seek his release only on furnishing two local solvent sureties. In the event of furnishing cash surety, applicant must substitute the same with two local sureties within one week thereafter. Order accordingly. 13. Application is disposed of in terms of this order. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J)