1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3467/2009 (J.B. Sathe .vs. State of Mah. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. M.P. Kariya, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A.D. Sonak, APP for Respondent. .. CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 1, 2009 The applicant/accused arrested on 3.2.2009 and charge sheeted by Kharangana Police Station, Tahsil Arvi, district Wardha, for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC has prayed for bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime and the same is apparent as in spite of the prosecution theory of the victim having resisted for commission of offence and/or during the incident herself being assaulted by the applicant, the same is not at all found corroborated by medical evidence collected. He has further urged that theory of the applicant having threatened to the victim for not lodging the report is also to some extent belied by the fact of report being lodged 2 on the same day. He has thus contended that the material collected by the prosecution also raises the possibility of high degree of victim being consenting party and thereafter having implicated the applicant probably due to somebody have seen the incident. He has further urged that the time and place on which the alleged incident has taken place also runs against the probability factor of the intercourse being committed forcibly. It is thus his contention that considering the character of the prosecution evidence, the applicant being in custody for a period of about 9-10 months and having not committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he may be released on bail on such conditions as deem proper by the Court. The learned APP has objected the application on the ground that semen being found on the clothes of the victim indicating that sexual act having taken place. He has further urged that the FIR being promptly lodged also rules out the possibility of false implication as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has urged that taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has then threatened the victim also indicates of there being possibility of prosecution evidence getting tampered. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides, though the corroboration from the medical evidence or otherwise to the claim of the victim being not sine qua non requirement still considering character of the prosecution evidence and the probability factor, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail by imposing certain 3 conditions for meeting the apprehension expressed by the prosecution. Hence the order: The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties in like amount and subject to the conditions that the applicant (i) shall not enter the local limits of Danapur village save and except the permission from the Court; (ii) shall not indulge in any act of tampering the prosecution evidence in any manner and (iii) while furnishing bail, shall furnish his residential address to the Court and shall reside at the same address and shall not change the same without intimation to the Court and (iv) shall not commit any offence while being on bail. Hamdast granted. JUDGE halwai