1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL. APPLCIATION NO. 450/2009 (Gunwanta Doma Barai ..vs.. State ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 9th APRIL, 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1281/2009 Heard Shri Karmarkar, Advocate for applicant and Shri Mandpe, A.P.P. for state. Filing of FIR is dispensed with for the present. It may be filed within 15 days. Application stand disposed of. 000 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 450/2009: Heard Shri Karmarkar, advocate for applicant and Shri Mandpe, A.P.P. for state. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant is accused of the offence punishable under section 376, 363, 366 of I.P.C. , 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is alleged that the applicant had induced the prosecutrix to come with him from place to place and she was subjected to intercourse. I need not to go into the details. Suffice it to say that the prosecutrix was studying in 9th standard and her age was stated to be about 15 years, as on 7.12.2008. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1997(3) Crimes 365 Ramkrishna Raghunath Burkule ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and 2 2004 ALL MR (Cri)2 Sidhu Sukhdev Waghmare ..vs.. State of Maharashtra. In the Ist case the accused was in custody for a long time. In the other case, the observation is that the girl was of 16 years and her statement was recorded stating that she was not consenting party. Here is the case where the sexual intercourse is alleged to be with consent. The consent, of a girl below 16 years is of no consequence. In the present case medical evidence seems to be against the applicant. In my opinion, even if there is consent, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will not make the applicant entitled for bail. It is pertinent to note that the applicant had taken the girl from one place to another. In FIR the prosecutrix has given the details about the occurrence s which took place during the that period with the applicant. She has also informed that on 25.12.2008, applicant had as usual applicant had gone for work and prosecutrix wanted to get rid of the applicant, she came from Karogh to Bhopal and from Bhopal to Pandhurna, then from Pandhurna to Sindewani to the house of her sister. In these circumstances, as the trial of the accused is likely to be held in near future, bail is not warranted. Application is rejected. However liberty to the applicant to move for bail, if necssary, if the trial does not commence within a period of 3 months from today. 3 Application stands disposed of. It is made clear that trial court shall not get influenced by any of the observations made above, while deciding the matter on merit. JUDGE SMP