..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2475 OF 2008 Mr.Anil Govind Thakur. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Meghashyam Kocharekar, Adv. for the applicant. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-01 of 2008 of Kolse Wadi police station, Thane. The said case is mainly under Section 376 of IPC. 3. The prosecutrix has stated that on 31.12.2007 she and her husband were in their house. At that time, the applicant entered into the house and threatened them. He slapped her husband and assaulted him. One of the coaccused took the husband of the prosecutrix out of the ..(2).. house and thereafter the doors were closed. The applicant had shown a knife to the prosecutrix and threatened her that her husband who was in custody of coaccused will be killed. The applicant assaulted the prosecutrix. She received one cut on the hand. Thereafter the applicant committed rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix shouted for help. Her husband had also seen the incident from the gap in the door. Thereafter the applicant came out of the house and threatened the public who had gathered there to keep quiet and not to disclose the incident. The statement of the witnesses have been recorded, who have stated about the applicant coming out of the house of the prosecutrix. They had also heard cries and shouts of a female. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the incident had occurred on 31.12.2007, however,the FIR is recorded on the next day i.e. on 1.1.2008. He submitted that this delay creates a cloud of doubt about the veracity of the prosecutrix. As far as delay is concerned, it is seen that invariably in cases of rape, there is delay in lodging in FIR on account ..(3).. of various factors. Hence though the FIR is lodged on the next day, I do not find much merit in the submission that this would raise some doubt in the mind regarding the case of the prosecutrix. 5. Thereafter it was submitted that no injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix to suggest rape. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the prosecutrix is a married lady. Moreover, the applicant had threatened the prosecutrix with a knife and he had further threatened that her husband may be killed. Hence there was no question of the prosecutrix putting up any resistence and/or any injuries being caused to show that it was a case of rape. The material on record, clearly implicates the applicant. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)