1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1665 of 2010 Mukesh Shantilal Rajne ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Paratwada, Dist. Amravati. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Parvez Mirza, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.M.Bhagde, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 19 th Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail in Crime No. 127/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 452, 376 of I.P.C., registered with Police Station, Paratwada, Dist. Amravati. Mr. Mirza, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is a boy of 19 years, who is prosecuting his studies and he is falsely involved in the offence on the ground that the demand which was made by the parents of the prosecutrix, was not fulfilled by the applicant. Learned Advocate further submitted that there is no evidence on record so as to connect the applicant with the crime. He further submitted that even the medical report do not support the case of the prosecution. To substantiate his arguments, learned Advocate has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in case of Menino Lopes .vs. State of Goa, reported in 1995 DGLS (Cri) Soft 470 and in case of Sopan Gokul Kashikar .vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 All M.R. (Cri.) 56 ; as well as the order of Apex 2 Court in case of Yerumalla Latchaiah .vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 399/2000. Learned Advocate, therefore, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant. Mr. Bhagde, learned APP for the State has filed reply and opposed the application. He has also placed the record before the Court for perusal. Perusal of record shows that the report was lodged by the father of the victim namely Swati, aged about 9 years alleging therein that when he returned back to home after attending his duty he entered the house and found that in the kitchen, the applicant was sexually exploiting his daughter/prosecutrix. It is further stated in the report that after seeing the complainant, the applicant immediately ran away. The record shows that the statements of the victim as well as her mother and the neighbourers have been recorded, which clearly states about the presence of the applicant on the spot and the act of sexual exploitation at the hands of the applicant. The medical certificate show the abrasion marks on glance penis of the applicant. The record also reveal that the mother of the victim/ prosecutrix had noticed blood stains and the stains of semen on the undergarment of the prosecutrix. Learned APP has stated that the offence is serious one and there is sufficient material to connect the accused in the crime. He further submitted that the applicant had approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, but the same came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur vide order dated 13/9/2010. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. In view of the material collected by the investigating agency, it can be said that there is strong material available against the applicant. It is not in dispute that at the stage of considering the bail application, in-depth scanning or assessment of the evidence is not 3 expected. Here, in the case of applicant, there is strong material available on record. The apprehension expressed by the investigating agency that the applicant may pressurize the witnesses is justified. Though, learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments as mentioned above, in my considered opinion, in view of the peculiar facts of the case and the material available against the applicant, these judgments are not applicable in the present case. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale