1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5049 OF 2009 Jaginder C. Chaurasia ....Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Mr.J.S. Padom i/b. Mr. T.N. Upadhyay Mr.H.J. Dedhia -APP for State ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 2ND DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under sections 363, 342, 376, 354 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered vide C.R. No.240 of 2009 with Vakola Police Station. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that there is a contradiction in the statements of the Complainant and the statement of the prosecutrix. 1 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to the statement of the First Informant, who was the proposed father-in-law of the prosecutrix. He also invited my attention to the statement of the prosecutrix. He submitted that what has been narrated by the Complainant to the police and what has been mentioned by the prosecutrix in her statement is different. He submitted that the version given by the prosecutrix was not reliable and it was difficult to conceive that she had left the house in the morning at 4.00 a.m. to purchase milk. He also submitted that the version given by the prosecutrix was not supported by the medical certificate which shows that there was no injury on the person of the prosecutrix and tears of the private part was at least 7 days old. 4. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant cannot be accepted. Though there are some contradictions in the statement of the Complainant and the statement of the prosecutrix, the fact remains that the prosecutrix has given a statement wherein she had categorically stated that the Applicant detained her in the house and committed the offence of rape. One of the witnesses had stated in her statement that the prosecutrix was found in their house in the morning. Therefore, no case is 1 made out for grant of bail. The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Trial,however, is expedited. (V.M. KANADE J.)