1 BA-1340.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1340 OF 2011 {For Bail} Yuvraj Maruti Kamble .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with S.R. Mithare for the Applicant. Ms P.P. Bhosale, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for bail by a Police Head Constable who was a drill instructor at Kolhapur. The victim was serving as a trainee police constable at Kolhapur. She claims that on 15-1-2011, for the first time, and thereafter again the applicant had raped her by calling her to his quarters. 2. On 21-3-2011 her pregnancy test came positive when all lady police constables were taken for medical examination at CPR Hospital, Kolhapur. She claims that at the instance of the applicant, she told that this pregnancy was 2 BA-1340.11 on account of her relations with her friend one Avinash Pawar, who was posted at Gaganbawda Police Station. 3. On 23-3-2011 she seems to have contacted a private medical practitioner for termination of her pregnancy and with the help of that doctor the pregnancy came to be terminated on 26-3-2011. 4. On 6-4-2011 the victim gave a complaint to the Special Inspector General of Police at Kolhapur. Thereafter, FIR was lodged on 23-4-2011. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was not possible for the victim and the applicant to come together on 15-1-2011, since on that day the victim had been sent to Sangli. But this does not appear to be so. Though in the muster roll it has been recorded that from 15-1-2011 the batch of lady police constables had gone to Sangli, the Station Diary shows that on 16-1-2011 the batch left Sangli at 7:30 a.m.. The learned counsel points out from the certificate of medical examination of the victim that she was habituated to intercourse and, therefore, considering the delay in filing the report, as also the fact that on the 3 BA-1340.11 pregnancy being detected for the first time the prosecutrix had named another police constable to have fathered that pregnancy, the applicant s being in custody pending the trial may not be necessary, since investigation in the matter is over. 5. The learned APP has a very strong objection to the applicant being bailed out and she submits, first, that a person in uniform should not have indulged in such activity with his subordinate. The applicant had persuaded the victim to take the name of a wrong person and in fact coerced her into termination of pregnancy as well naming a wrong person. She states that if the applicant is bailed out, it would prejudice a fair trial. 6. Even after all the allegations in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, still the facts that are unfolded are that, first, the intercourse allegedly took place on 15-1-2011 and the victim had made no report or no disclosure to anyone from that date till she was found to be pregnant. Even then she seems to have named a wrong person at the instance of the applicant and even thereafter, after the termination of pregnancy, she gave a report to 4 BA-1340.11 her superior only on 6-4-2011. As far as the applicant s being in position to influence the witnesses, since most of the witnesses are either from the police force or from the medical profession and since the investigation is carried out by high ranking police officers, it is difficult to believe that the applicant would be in a position to influence the witnesses at the trial. In any case, these apprehensions can be sufficiently taken care of by the Police Department itself by posting the applicant at a place far away from the place where the victim or the other witnesses may be posted. 7. In view of the above, the applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.79 of 2011 of Shahupuri Police Station, District Kolhapur on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to `50,000/-. 8. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)