1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2042 OF 2010 (Rajprakash Shaha .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for the applicant. Shri C.N. Adgokar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 27TH JANUARY, 2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 08TH FEBRUARY, 2011. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 506 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.206/2010 registered with the Police Station, Ram Nagar, Chandrapur. This is the second attempt of the applicant for seeking his enlargement on bail. It will not be out of place to mention that this Court vide order dated 14th October, 2010 rejected the application No. 1531 of 2010. In the report lodged by victim prosecutrix Ku. Taranjeet @ Pinky Bawa, it is stated that the applicant had developed intimacy with her and on giving assurance of marriage sexually exploited her. It is not in dispute that this Court, by considering the material against the applicant found that there was sufficient material against the applicant and as the investigation was in progress, was not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the investigation is concluded by the investigating agency by filing the charge sheet against the applicant. He further submits that filing of the charge sheet itself is a change in circumstance and as such the present application is filed in view of the change in circumstance. Learned Counsel further submits that even considering the material brought by the investigating agency, the material is neither sufficient nor enough to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. He further submits that on the said 2 material, chances of conviction of the applicant in the crime are bleak and as such no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars for indefinite period. Learned Counsel further submits that the applicant is a young student and he is behind the bars since 02.08.2010. He further submits that the applicant is ready to abide by any condition if imposed upon the applicant by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Learned Counsel for the applicant to support his submissions, places reliance on the judgments in the matters of Bhagirathsinh Judeja .v. State of Gujarat (reported in AIR 1984 SC 372); Sandeep Kaniram Rathod .v. State of Maharashtra (reported 2010 All MR (Cri) 2673); Shiney Suraj Ahuja .v. State of Maharashtra (reported 2010 All MR (Cri) 92); and Anwar Khan Iqbal Khan .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2010 All Mr (Cri) 2124). Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the application. By inviting my attention to the reply filed on behalf of the state, learned APP submits that except filing of charge sheet, there is no change in circumstance. He further submits that on considering the material against the applicant, this Court has rejected his earlier application. He further submits that there is no substantial change in the circumstances even after filing of the charge sheet. Learned APP has placed the material collected by the investigating for the perusal of this Court. I have gone through the material placed on record. The report lodged by victim Ku. Taranjeet @ Pinky Bawa reveals that the applicant has made purposeful efforts to develop the intimacy with the victim. It further reveals that the applicant has presented the mobile phone to the victim and was establishing the contact on mobile phone with the victim and giving assurances of his love and of marriage. The material further reveals that on giving assurances of marriage, the applicant has forced the victim to accompany him in a vacant apartment and the victim was subjected to sexual exploitation at the hands of the applicant. It further reveals that when the victim asked the applicant his 3 intention about the marriage, the applicant flatly refused to marry her. The material collected by the investigating agency further reveals that when the apartment/flat was searched it was found that there was a hole in between the bed room and the bathroom. The material further reveals that the victim has expressed her apprehension that the friend of the applicant with the help of the mobile phone camera recorded the intimacy between the victim and the applicant and apprehension was also expressed by the victim that the videography might have been misused by the applicant and his friend. The investigating agency has also recorded the statement of one witness. The investigating agency has also collected the material which reveals that the applicant is also involved in sexual exploitation of one other victim namely Ku. Pooja Mandal. In view of the material collected by the investigating agency, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient material that the applicant is involved in a serious crime in which victims were subjected to sexual exploitation. Merely filing of the charge sheet cannot be the ground to release the applicant on bail. Though the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the aforesaid judgments, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances wherein there is enough material against the applicant, the said judgments are not applicable to the present case. In the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the assurances were given by the applicant for marriage; whereas in the present case, it is not only assurance given by the applicant for marriage but the applicant has tried to shoot the intimacy between the applicant and the victim through the friend of the applicant which makes the offence more serious. In my opinion, there is no material change brought by the applicant so as to take any different view which was taken this Court earlier. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE