jpc ba898-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.898 OF 2011 Ajit Shriram Varma ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Hitesh Dabhi and Mr. Tanvir Shaikh for the applicant Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 7th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Dabhi, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the copy of the FIR and other annexures to the bail application. 3. The applicant is accused of having committed rape on a child of four years. The main contention of Mr. Dabhi, the learned advocate for the applicant, is that the theory of rape lacks support from the medical evidence. He also submitted that the theory of rape is contradicted by the first informant's own statement, made by her before the medical officer. 4. I have examined the matter. The first informant, who is mother of the victim, has mentioned about the incident of rape in the F.I.R., but, while giving history of the incident to the medical officer, she mentioned about insertion of fingers in to the private part of the victim. Thus, there is some substance in the contention of the learned advocate for the applicant that there is inconsistency in the version jpc ba898-11.sxw 2 of the first informant. However, the matter has to be looked at from a different angle. 5. Apparently, the victim was bleeding from private parts. Whether injury was due to the penetration by male organ or penetration by fingers, cannot be said with certainty at this stage. Assuming that it was by fingers still the applicant can be held guilty of some offence and further, the nature of the injury caused to the victim would also need consideration for levelling a proper accusation against the applicant. 6. Taking an overall view of the matter and after considering the heinous nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant, the proper course seems to me to expedite the trial instead of directing the release of the applicant on bail. I am informed that the case has already been committed to the Court of session. In my opinion, ends of justice would be met by passing the following order. O R D E R i. The application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. ii. Liberty to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within that time, or even prior to that after the evidence of the first informant and the medical evidence is recorded, if so advised. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)