1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANTABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2043 OF 2009 Rakesh s/o Rudhya Bhil ..Applicant. V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Shri P.M. Shinde, APP for Respondent CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Heard the counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.P.P. 2- The accused is charged with accusations for an offence under section 363, 366, 376 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The victim reported her age to be 16 years. However, the birth certificate indicates that she was borned on 14th of October, 1992. As per the calculations carved by the learned counsel for the accused, she is of 16 years, 4 months and 20 days. 3- In the statement of the victim, the fact of sexual intercourse is indicated. Whether it is by consent or forceful cannot be decided at the stage of bail. The term ‘consent’ envisaged in Section 90 of Indian Penal Code will have its role in the matter. It may be, there were love affairs between the accused and the victim, but the fact remains she has implicated the accused carving ingredients of section 376 of Indian Penal Code. The statement of the victim and her parents including the witnesses indicated the element of kidnapping of the victim. In the situation, at this 2 stage to entertain the bail application, will be adding to the injury of the victim and her family members. Consequently following order. O R D E R i) Bail application is rejected. ii) Considering his age, trial is expedited. Learned Sessions Judge will ensure to complete the same within a period of three months on getting the record. Iii) Accused shall not protract the proceedings. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ) **** aaa/2043.09