12. cr appln 5454­10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLICATION NO. 5454 OF 2010 Chidanand @ Tamma Mallappa Mendigire .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. R.V. Bansode i/b Mr. Shivaji Rao Masal for Applicant Ms. R.V. Newton, APP for the State CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the police papers filed with the charge sheet. 2. The applicant-accused seeks bail in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix used to supply milk at the house of the present applicant. One Raj Danke, who was a servant of the present applicant, also used to go to the 1 12. cr appln 5454­10.doc house of the prosecutrix for that purpose. The tractor of the prosecutrix was attached by the Bank of Baroda as installments could not be paid, therefore, she requested the present applicant to advance an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The applicant assured to advance money and told her that he would send a rickshaw so that she could come at Jaisingpur to collect money. After she went there, she was taken to a room in a lodge where she was raped forcibly. Not only this, the applicant also managed to make film of the whole scene of the rape. He did not make any payment on that day and asked the prosecutrix to come after four days. Due to fear of defamation, the prosecutrix did not disclose the fact to anybody. Thereafter, on two more occasions, the present applicant committed rape on her by giving threats that the video film would be disclosed. Finally, she lodged a report on 13th April 2010. Though in the FIR, incident is shown of the year 2007, in the later statement, it is mentioned that the incident was actually of 2008 and by mistake,it was shown to be of 2007 in the FIR. 4. It is true that there was a delay in lodging the 2 12. cr appln 5454­10.doc report but it appears that the prosecutrix decided to lodge a report when she was tired of blackmailing by the present applicant. Later on, a CD showing the said film was seized on the basis of the information given by Raj Danke, the servant of the present applicant. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to grant bail. 5. Hence, the application stands rejected. [ J.H. BHATIA, J ] 3 12. cr appln 5454­10.doc 4