1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1530 of 2010 Raj Prakash Shah ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Ramnagar, Chandrapur Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.M.Rizwy, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 14 th Octo ber , 2010 . Heard. By this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail, in Crime No. 196/2010 registered with Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. In the report lodged by the victim/prosecutrix Ku. Pooja Sapan Mandal, it is stated that she was studying in 12th standard. The applicant developed intimacy with her and on giving assurance of marriage, the applicant sexually exploited her. It is also stated in the report that when the victim insisted for marriage, the applicant flatly refused and therefore, the victim tried to commit suicide. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that bare perusal of the report shows that the victim was the consenting party and the report is an outcome of the professional rivalry between the father of the applicant and one Dr. Potdar. Therefore, the applicant deserves enlargement on bail. The reply is filed by learned APP for respondent-State and opposed the application. 2 Perused the reply and the record produced by learned APP for perusal of the Court. It is stated in the reply that instant offence is very serious in nature and the applicant is habitual offender. The applicant is involved in another matter of similar nature being Crime No. 3118/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 292 R/w Sec. 65(d) of Bombay Police Act and under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.. The investigation is in progress and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, learned APP has prayed for rejection of the application. From the perusal of record, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the investigating agency has collected material to show the involvement of the applicant in the said crime. The apprehension expressed by the investigating agency that as investigation is in progress and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence, is justified. In view of these facts, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. In the result, the application is rejected and disposed of as such. JUDGE Diwale