IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1057 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1057 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1057 OF 2009 Pandurang @ Suraj Posha Patil ...Applicant (Orig.Accused) vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Rahul Thakur for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 6, 2009 DATED : MARCH 6, 2009 DATED : MARCH 6, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with an offence which is registered vide C.R.No.I-23/2009 registered with Uran Police Station, Raigad, under Sections 354, 376, 511 of the IPC. 3. A complaint was lodged by one Supriya Narayan Patil on 20th February, 2009 at about 1.30 p.m. stating the on 17th February, 2009 at about 8 p.m., the applicant forcibly caught her and thereafter, attempted to commit rape on her. The complaint was lodged after three days. - 2 - 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of the complaint discloses that the offence at the most would fall under Section 354 of the IPC and not Section 376 read with 511. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the complainant. It is submitted that though there was alleged eye witness to the said incident who was the brother of the prosecutrix, he had not made any attempt to rescue his sister and as alleged, the applicant committed the said offence. He submitted that therefore, this itself make a statement of the said brother who is an interested witness, unreliable. It is submitted that it is inconceivable that for a period of three days, the girl would quitely go to her sister’s place and would surface after three days and lodged the said complaint. It is further submitted that Medical Certificate has not been produced by the police. It is, therefore, submitted that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 5. This submissions, in my view, are unacceptable. - 3 - The eye witness who is the brother of the prosecutrix has seen both of them in a comprising position. It is not possible to know that the said eye witness did not try to rescue the prosecutrix. The prosecurtix in her statement has stated that the applicant had her gagged by putting dupatta in her mouth and he had removed her trouser and out of fear, thereafter, she had gone to her married sister’s house. She has stated that the complainant’s brother had come to her rescue after he heard her voice and had rescued her and since she was afraid, she did not go to her house and initially went to her aunt’s house and thereafter to her sister’s house. In view of these two statements, there is prima facie material on record which clearly implicate the applicant for the commission of the said offence. The prosecutrix was 14 years old on the date of the incident. Thereafter, the question of consent does not arise. There are other cases filed against the present applicant. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. - 4 - 6. The application, accordingly, is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)