( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3039 OF 2010 Goraksha s/o. Devidas Patil .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 27.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicant is alleged to have committed rape on mentally retarded unmarried woman, by name, Vithabai. The prosecution alleges that on 08.04.2010 Vithabai and her mother were only two persons in the house; whereas her father had gone to Jalgaon for marketing. When he returned home at about 2.00 p.m., then he received information that the applicant had called the prosecutrix in his house under the ( 2 ) guise of watching T.V. programme. He, thereafter, had put her on a mattress and ravished her. Her mother and aunt had raised cry at about 11.30 a.m. They noticed that the applicant had opened door of his house and was putting on under-garment of the prosecutrix on her person. The delay was caused in filing of the F.I.R. because of attempt to settle the matter. 3. Counsel for the applicant would submit that in the absence of any medical evidence, the applicant may not be prima facie guilty of offence of rape. He would further submit that the delay caused in lodging of F.I.R. speaks volume. He contended that the applicant is framed in the criminal case. He argued that the applicant may be granted liberty under present circumstances and is ready to reside away from the village in order to ensure fair trial. Learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the bail application. 4. So far as the delay is concerned, it may be gathered that there was some attempt for the settlement. The F.I.R. itself shows that the father of the prosecutrix and her cousin had gone to Jalgaon for lodging of the report, but ( 3 ) the cousin uncle of the applicant had requested them to go back to the village without filing of report. On his behest, they did not lodge the report and returned the village. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that unmarried daughter of the complainant is a mentally retarded young woman. The applicant resides just beside to the house of the complainant after leaving only a mid-way. The applicant was not on inimical terms with the complainant and his family members. There is no prior incident of any dispute between them. Why the complainant should frame the applicant? There appears no satisfactory answer coming-forth. It appears that the mother of the prosecutrix and her aunt became immediately suspicious when the prosecutrix was not found in the house and therefore they raised cry. Their conduct is quite natural. For, the prosecutrix is mentally retarded woman, there was possibility of her exploitation by any one who could have knowledge of her mental weakness. Their versions prima facie indicate that the applicant had opened door of his house and in hurried manner was found putting on under-garment on the person of the prosecutrix. The very fact that she was present in the house of the applicant is indicative of his attempt to exploit the situation. There was nobody else in ( 4 ) his house. Considering these aspects, mere absence of medical evidence and the delay of two days cannot be regarded as sufficient ground to grant liberty to the applicant. In the result, the application is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/cra3039.10