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. 1343 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1343 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1343 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1303 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1303 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1303 OF 2007 Bablu Khota Shaikh ...Applicant (Orig.Accused) vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.H.E. Moomen for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 4, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 4, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 4, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 354 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and 2 years, respectively. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant forcibly raped the prosecutrix who was 13 years of age. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted - 2 - that initially, a formal complaint was lodged on 13.2.2006. In the said complaint, it was stated that the applicant had a fight with the prosecutrix. The said complaint was lodged under Section 151 of the IPC. Later on, on 15.2.2006, a second complaint was lodged and it was alleged that the applicant had molested the prosecutrix. Thereafter, an additional statement of the prosecutrix was taken on 15.2.2006 in which it was alleged that the applicant had committed rape on the prosecutrix. He submitted that the prosecutrix had changed her story within a span of six days. He submitted that the applicant is in jail since last more than 2 years. He further submitted that the prosecutrix is no longer residing in the said locality and she is married now and she is staying at Kolkata. 5. The learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the father of the prosecutrix had been staying at Kolkata six months prior to the incidence and he was afraid to lodge the complaint of rape by the applicant. She submitted that the medical evidence supported the case of the prosecutrix. She also invited my attention - 3 - to the injuries which were inflicted by the applicant on the face, chest and back of the prosecutrix. She, therefore, submitted that the bail application may be rejected. 6. In my view, taking into consideration the fact that three different versions have been given by the prosecutrix and her father within a span of six days and that several improvements have been made by the prosecutrix in her evidence, prima facie case is made out for grant of bail. Further, the prosecutrix is no longer residing in the said area and has settled at Kolkata after her marriage. Further, the applicant has also undergone two years sentence out of 5 years sentence imposed by the trial court. 7. Under these circumstances, the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. 8. Application is disposed of. - 4 - (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)