1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1419 OF 2009 Gajanan Ramrao Kute, Age : 42 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Aundha, Dist. Hingoli .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Jintur Police Station, Jintur, District Parbhani (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the applicant Smt. S.B. Wadmare, APP for the respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 12th JUNE, 2009 P.C.:- 1] The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in crime no. 58 of 2009 registered by Jintur Police Station, Dist. Parbhani alleging offences punishable under section 498-A, 306, 376 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 2] The prosecution case can be stated as under:- . The victim Latabai was brought to the hospital on 13.4.2009 in injured condition. She had suffered extensive burns. On that day her first dying declaration was recorded and Police recorded the offence. On 14.4.2009, her two more dying declarations were recorded. The allegations that emerge from these dying declarations are as under:- . Latabai was married to Satyanarayan, sometime in 2003. Despite long standing married life, Latabai could not beget a child. She used to stay with her husband and in-laws at village Itoli, Tq.Jintur. In February, 2009, Latabai’s sister-in- law, her husband’s married sister, requested her that she should come and stay with her for baby sitting her children. Accordingly, Latabai as well as her husband Satyanarayan both went to stay with her sister-in-law namely Mangalbai. The applicant here is the husband of Mangalbai. Latabai alleged that the applicant had an evil eye on her and he touched her, suggesting sexual relations while she 3 was staying in his home. Latabai informed this fact to her husband. Satnarayan ignored her allegations and accused her of being quarrelsome. The applicant and Mangalbai appear to have a better financial position. They maintain a car. Mangalbai is in active politics. At that time she was Chairperson of Panchayat Samiti, Hingoli. The present applicant was supporting her political career. On 25.2.2009, they planned to go to Pathri for attending a political meeting. They took their younger child with them and asked Latabai to accompany them for baby sitting. They went and stayed at the Government Guest House, Pathri. The applicant during this short stay committed rape on Latabai. Latabai however, did not disclose it to anyone because she was threatened by the applicant besides she felt ashamed of the incident. On next day, Latabai and her husband went to their native place, where Latabai informed this ghastly incident to her mother-in-law but her mother in law did not take her complaint seriously and accused her of being quarrelsome. In the meantime, Latabai was harassed by her in laws and husband. The in-laws of 4 Latabai then started humiliating her that she was raped. On 12.4.2009, Latabai had quarrel with all her in-laws and then she set herself on fire. As said above, she was then rushed to Civil Hospital at Parbhani where she disclosed the above mentioned allegations in her declarations. The prosecution probably may not succeed in indicating that the present applicant had harassed Latabai over dowry demands etc. But the prosecution case clearly indicates that the applicant had raped Latabai on 25.2.2009 a few days prior to her death. The narration of Latabai clearly indicates that she felt humiliated because of the incident of rape and that her insult further aggravated because her in-laws did not take her seriously and instead, they used this incident to further abuse her. This indeed could have been very humiliating and depressing for her. The prosecution case also placed reliance on statement of the Watchman of the Government Guest House at Pathri. He stated that the applicant and his family members, including the deceased had gone and stayed at the Rest House on 25.2.2009. 5 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant suggested that there is inconsistency in the dying declarations. The first dying declaration does not mention the incident of rape, but Latabai in this statement made clear allegation that the applicant tried to molest her while she was staying in his house and in the subsequent two dying declarations, she made no bones of her allegation of rape. So I do not think there is serious discrepancy in the dying declarations. 4] The learned Advocate further asserted that there is enormous delay in making the accusation of rape. Indeed though the incident of rape occurred on 25.2.2009, the complaint was lodged on 14.4.2009 but in given circumstances, the delay looks natural and obvious. He further asserted that the entire accusations against his client is orchestrated by his political opponent. I am afraid there is no indication to that effect seen in the Police papers of this case. 5] The victim’s uncle is present before this 6 Court, therefore the learned Advocate appearing for him is permitted to intervene and assist the prosecution. This shows that the victim’s family members are prosecuting this case and it cannot be said that the applicant’s political opponent is doing so. The applicant was not a immediate family member of the deceased. She was harassed, taunted by her immediate family members like parents in laws etc. over dowry demands. She did not make such allegation against the applicant. Obviously he would not be interested in such demands. Despite of such remote relations with the applicant, the deceased chose him to make the allegation of rape. This aspect of the case cannot be ignored. Investigation in such allegation is necessary. Looking to the seriousness of the allegation and it’s probability, I am not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6] The application stands rejected. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/12june9/cr1419.09