{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3111 OF 2010 Govind Subhash Agrawal, APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.76/2010 registered with Degloor police station, Dist-Nanded for an offence punishable u/s 292 (2) (A), 506, 376 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information & Technology Act 2000. The applicant is arrested on 4th May 2010. It is informed that in this offence, after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed on 25th June 2010 and numbered as RCC No.104/2010. 2. In the light of the rival submissions, perused the papers of investigation with the assistance of learned counsel for applicants and learned APP. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the {2} complaint of Reena in respect of alleged incident dated 30.03.2010. It is alleged in the compliant that she got acquainted with the applicant and she was called by him in a mobile shoppee of his friend. It is alleged that in the said shoppee, some indecent behavior was done by the applicant with the complainant and video clip of the same was taken and on the basis of said indecent video clip, she was black mailed by the applicant and his friend and again she was called there where her half naked photographs are taken. By taking disadvantage of the said photographs under the threats to display the same in public, she was forced to give consent for sexual relations by the applicant. Hence, complaint is lodged after 34 days of the alleged incident. 4. It appears that immediately, after the lodging of the complaint, the prosecutorix and the applicant were referred for medical examination, so also clothes of both of them were seized and sent for chemical test. Report of medical examination of the prosecutorix does not support the allegations made in the compliant likewise the report of the CA also does not support the allegations, as no trace of human semen or blood were found on the same. There cannot be anything unnatural in the same, as the clothes were seized after 34 days of the alleged incident and both the prosecutorix and the applicant were examined after 34 days of the incident and hence there could not be any possibility of having any traces of semen or blood. Now the only question requires consideration is that except the averment that mental condition of {3} the prosecutorix was not stable, no other explanation is offered for the delay in lodging the FIR, and hence whether the same can believed or not. Though it is rule that in the cases of sexual ravishment that statement of the victim not to be discarded on such ground, yet if the statement is not supported by any other evidence then certain concession requires to be given to the accused. Considering this fact coupled with the fact that now the investigation is over, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount, if not required in any other offence. The applicant is directed to attend Degloor police station on 15th day of each month till the sessions trial is over. Violation of this condition would entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. 6. It is hereby made clear that these observations are prima facie observations based on the papers of investigation placed before this Court and the trial court need not be influenced with the same while conducting the trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3111-10