1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No. 704 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2010 (Ganesh Laxman Korde V. The State) Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R.K. Jadhavar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent/State PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant/appellant was convicted under Sections 376, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant/appellant was sentenced to suffer seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court below awarded sentences of lesser duration for other 2 two offences, mentioned above. 3. This is an application for bail, pending the disposal of the appeal. The question is, whether the applicant/appellant makes out a case for bail. The answer is in negative. This is an exceptional case, where I am inclined not to exercise discretion of giving bail to the applicant/appellant, pending the appeal. The Court below held that the charges leveled against the applicant/appellant are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/appellant argued that this could be a case of consensus sexual intercourse where the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age. He tried to suggest that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years. He said, the prosecution could not bring birth certificate of the prosecutrix on record, and the medical evidence in respect of her age is rather empirical and there is a margin of error. This argument can certainly be taken into account while hearing the appeal, but, at this stage, in view of the tender age of the prosecutrix, the learned Judge’s 3 appreciation of her case and the allegation of rape, made by her, would weigh more in favour of rejection the bail application. The applicant/appellant is said to be 26 years old man and it is not a case that there was a love affair between the applicant/appellant and the prosecutrix. I am not inclined to allow the application. The hearing of the appeal be expedited. The office shall make the appeal ready in all respects and shall fix it for hearing in June, 2010. 4. With above directions, application stands rejected. DT: 05.04.2010 [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] srm/criapln/704/10