1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC.CRIL.APPLICATION NO.3740 OF 2009 Sachin Dhanraj Ingole ..vs.. State of Mah. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 24th December, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.V.Khondalay, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.I.L.Bodade, learned APP for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence alleged against the present applicant is one under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is alleged that, on the date of the incident some four persons entered into the house of the prosecutrix and all of them committed rape on her. She later lodged report with the police and accused has been arrested upon registration of the offence. 2 4. The Sessions court has rejected the application and this application has been moved before this court now. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant brings to my notice the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the prosecutrix. If the F.I.R. is seen, it would be clear that the prosecutrix describes each and every accused by his name, his father’s name and even surname and even aliases. The report goes to show that the person who committed rape were Harish Dehariya, Sachin Mahadeo Khurnake, Anil @ Annu and Golu Shivprasad Rathi. It appears further that subsequent to that the police recorded additional statement of the prosecutrix after one person was brought before her and she identified him. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the additional statement of prosecutrix recorded by the police would go to show that it was the present accused who committed the rape. 6. The submission cannot be accepted. Accused no.2 has been clearly described not only along with his name but his father and his surname has also been given. It cannot therefore be said that the prosecutrix did not know the persons committing 3 rape over her. The fact that she gives out the father’s name and surname clearly shows that all accused are known to her personally and that is why she described them by their name, father’s name and surname. The name of the present accused is not to be found in the F.I.R. and in view of this, this is a sufficient circumstance to grant bail to the accused. In any case the charge-sheet has been filed, the investigation is, therefore, over and in view of this I see no impediment in granting bail to the applicant/accused. In view of this, accused be released on his entering into personal recognizance bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount. Accused to report to the Police Station, Ajni on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. and shall not tamper with any prosecution witness. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE. chute