crapln5435.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5435 OF 2010. Rahul Manmal Sancheti. .. APPLICANT. VERSUS State of Maharashtra. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri Satyajit Bora, Advocate for applicant. Shri V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for State with Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for complainant. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 14th January, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for State. 2. It is not necessary to burden this order with the grounds taken in the application for bail. Suffice it to say that the trial Court, while rejecting the application of the applicant, has extracted all the grounds taken by the applicant for releasing him on bail. crapln5435.10 2 3. The Counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged offences which are levelled against the applicant herein are all bailable except the offence alleged under Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He invited my attention to the provisions of Section 67(B) of the I.T. Act, 2000 and submitted that the provisions of the said Act can be made applicable only in cases of children below the age of 18 years. However, the age of the girl namely Rajlaxmi as mentioned in the F.I.R. is 20 years and, therefore, the provisions of said section cannot be made applicable in the instant case. The learned Counsel for the applicant further invited my attention to the reported judgment in case of Rasiklal vs Kishore, reported in 2009(3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 882 and relying on the said judgment, he submits that right of bail in bailable offence is absolute and indefeasible. Therefore, he submits that in the instant case the applicant deserves to be released on bail. crapln5435.10 3 4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the language of the SMS and also other messages sent through Internet is obscene. The A.P.P. further submits that there was demand of Rs.10,00,000/- by the applicant. The investigation is in progress and it is not desirable to release the applicant on bail at this stage. The learned A.P.P. has made submissions relying on the papers which are made available by the Investigating Officer. 5. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the observations made by the Court below while rejecting the bail application are in consonance with the material brought on record. On perusal of the language of the SMS, it is abundantly clear that the said messages are in obscene language. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to comment on merits of the matter. Suffice it to say that the investigation is in progress and whether the age of the girl is 20 years or not is yet to be convincingly brought on record. Merely because crapln5435.10 4 hear age is mentioned in the F.I.R. as 20 years, that cannot be a conclusive proof of her age. That apart, upon reading the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant, it appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the case for bail in which the offences alleged against the applicant therein were bailable. In the instant case, Section 67(B) of the I.T. Act, 2000 is involved and unless investigation is completed, any opinion cannot be expressed about the age of the girl, though age of the girl is mentioned as 20 years in the F.I.R. There is also possibility of the applicant indulging himself in similar activities, if he is released on bail. The very language of the messages sent by the applicant is not only obscene in nature but, to some extent, it appears to be threatening the complainant. It has also come on record that the applicant is serving somewhere at Mumbai and the offence has been registered at Jalgaon. Therefore, he may not be available for investigation to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, taking overall crapln5435.10 5 of the matter, at this stage when investigation is in progress, it is not desirable to release the applicant on bail. 6. Therefore, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. The application of the applicant stands rejected. However, the applicant will be at liberty to apply for bail after charge-sheet is filed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are prima facie observations, pending investigation and the same may not be read on subsequent occasions while entertaining bail application or during trial. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*