1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1624 OF 2010 (Datta Kisan Ade .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.J. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant. Shri C.N. Adgokar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 26TH NOVEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(F) of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.44/2010 registered with the Police Station, Mahagaon, District Yavatmal. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the report is lodged against the applicant is only outcome of the previous enmity between the parties. He further submits that the applicant is made a scape-goat of some conspiracy and there is no material to connect the applicant with the crime in question and as such he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned APP strongly opposes the application by filing the reply. He has also made available the record to this Court. It reveals from the reply and record that the victim has stated that she was subjected to sexual exploitation by one person and she has given description of the clothes worn by that person. She further states that she can identify that person by his face. The statements of the prosecutrix and her paternal aunt show that the applicant on the pretext to show where her uncle had gone, dragged the prosecutrix and sexually exploited her. It is also revealed from the material collected by the investigating agency that the medical officer has found there was bleeding from the vagina of prosecutrix and hymen was ruptured. Though the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there are certain contradictions in the statement, it is not in 2 dispute that at the stage of considering the application for bail, the in-depth assesdment and scrutiny of the evidence is not expected. The prosecutrix is a minor girl of ten years only. I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material against the applicant. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.