1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [BA] No. 527 of 2011 (Raj Prakash Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE : 14 th OCTOBER, 2011. By the present application, the applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in Crime No. 206/2010, registered with the Police Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Few facts are necessary to be stated prior to looking into the merits of the present application. It is not in dispute that this is the third attempt of the applicant for seeking his enlargement on bail. His first attempt was by way of application no. 1531/10, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14th October, 2010, whereas the second attempt was by way of application no. 2042/2010 and the same was also rejected by this Court vide order 8th February, 2011. The order passed by this Court on 8th February, 2011 was taken up to the Apex Court by preferring Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 1697/2011 and the Apex Court by order dated 04/03/2011 was pleased to pass the following order. “We are not inclined to interfere in this matter at this stage. The Special Leave petition stands dismissed. 2 However, the petitioner may renew his bail application after six months.” Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State at length. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that in view of the liberty granted by the Apex Court, the present applicant is before this Court. He further submits that the applicant is a young boy, who is prosecuting his studies in B.Com. He further submits that the investigation is concluded by filing the charge- sheet and no more material is to be collected. He further submits that the material collected by the investigating agency is inadequate to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. He submits that the applicant is involved in a serious crime. He further submits that there is no change in the circumstances entitling the applicant for his release on bail. It is not in dispute that this Court by order dated 8th February, 2011, on considering the material on record, rejected the application observing that there was sufficient material against the applicant. The grounds that the investigation is concluded by filing the final report and the applicant is a young boy, who is prosecuting his studies, itself are not sufficient claiming enlargement on bail. The material collected by the investigating agency clearly spells out that the applicant with a purposeful motive developed intimacy with the victim, who is also a student and prosecuting her studies in B.C.A. 1st year. The applicant developed the intimacy with the victim and gave her assurance of marriage. On giving the assurance of marriage, the applicant took the victim to a flat and exploited her sexually. An apprehension is expressed by the victim that in the flat, where she was ravished and subjected to sexual exploitation, the 3 applicant might have photographed the intimacy and used it for ill motive. I find considerable merits in the submissions of the learned APP that the applicant has committed a serious crime and no change in circumstances is brought before this Court to take any different view than the view which was taken while rejecting the earlier applications. In view of the above mentioned facts, I am of the opinion that the application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. The application is rejected accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *sdw