1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.474 OF 2010 Pandurang Sanjay Jayabhay APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ........ Mr.R.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.S.B.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mr. N.B.Patil, APP for respondents State. ........ [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 16th February 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.228/2009 registered with Karjat Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of one Tulsabai, who is an aged lady of 60 years. It is 2 alleged that in the night of 18th November 2009 at about 11.00 p.m. the applicant forcibly entered in her house, in absence of her husband, and sexually ravished her. It is further alleged that after her husband returned, she narrated the incident to him and the complaint is lodged in the morning. The applicant is also examined medically. 4. According to learned counsel for applicant, as the incident occurred during night hours and there is statement that some phone calls were given to the children and son in law of the complainant, complaint came to be lodged on the next day and hence there is delay in lodging the complaint, which is an after thought. It is also urged that there is dispute over agricultural property between the families of applicant and complainant and due to same a false and concocted case is lodged against the applicant. In the premise, it is urged that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned APP opposed the application as the investigation is in progress. 6. It has to bear in mind that the age of the complainant is 60 years and though she has lodged the complaint against the applicant who is 40 years old. Statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation indicate that they have seen the applicant entering and coming out of the house of the complainant at the time alleged in the complaint. It has to be noted that the applicant is well 3 acquainted with the complainant and hence there is no question of misidentification. The complainant has also alleged specific role against the applicant. The complainant is also examined medically and the CA report is still awaited. Considering the facts of the case it cannot be said, at least at this stage, that the applicant is falsely implicated. In the premise, discretion cannot be exercised to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, application, which is sans merits stand rejected. It is however, made clear that these are the prima facie observations based on the record before this Court and the trial court need not be influenced by the same. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) drp/A10/criapln474-10