{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2609 OF 2010 Manik @ Munna Kamalakar Parse APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 3rd August 2010 PER COURT: 1 By the present application, the applicant has prayed for his release on bail in connection with CR No.26/10, registered in Dhoki Police Station, District Osmanabad, in which, he came to be arrested on 27th March, 2010, in which charge sheet came to be filed on 26th May, 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad and after completing the requisite formalities, trial against the applicant has been committed to the Court of Sessions. 2 Heard Counsel for the applicant and A.P.P. for the State. {2} 3 It appears that complainant Savita Sunil Chavan lodged the report in Dhoki Police Station on 27.03.2010 about the alleged incident took place in early hours of 20th March 2010, wherein it is stated that during night hours, one unknown person entered her house by taking the benefit that latch of the door of house was not working properly and sexually ravished her. Later on, she realised that applicant is the same person, as lights were on. After the applicant left the residential premises, though he threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise her husband and kids have to face dire consequences, but the incident was reported to the mother-in-law who advised to report the incident to the Police Station after husband of the complainant will return back, as on the fateful night, he was out of station and hence complaint was registered after seven days i.e. on 27th March, 2010. 4 The papers of investigation discloses that the applicant was arrested in connection with this case on 27th March 2010 itself, but for whatever best reasons known to the investigation agency, not sent for his medical examination on that day. But, after he was taken in custody after the Revision was filed before the Court of Sessions, Osmanabad, he was medically examined on 8th April, 2010 i.e. about eighteen days after the date of alleged incident. It appears that the complainant was medically examined on 28th March, 2010. The report of medical examination is on record. It appears during investigation, statements of neighbours and others {3} were recorded. It required to consider that while the Revision was filed before Sessions Court, Osmanabad, an application was moved by the father of present applicant to the Idea Cellular Company to provide call details of the incoming and outgoing calls from the Cell Phone in possession of the applicant and Cell Phone in possession of the complainant, which stood in the name of husband of the complainant. There is bold allegation of the applicant against the complainant that since about last more than one year, the applicant has otherwise relations with the complainant and they were in frequent contact with each other. On the day of the incident, unfortunately for the complainant and applicant, the incident was noticed by the relatives and neighbours, hence the complainant lodged report against the applicant. 5 When on the last day this application was on board, directions were given to the learned A.P.P. to call the details from Idea Cellular Company about the holders of Cell Phone No. 9921973437 and 9604990102. Today, at the time of submissions across the Bar, the report received by the Investigating Officer from Idea Cellular Company was placed in my hands. It indicate that Cell Phone No.9604990102 stood in the name of husband of the complainant. At the same time, Cell Phone No.9921973437 is, as per the record, stood in the name of Kamlakar Parse (father of the applicant), but it is used by the present applicant. The call details about incoming and outgoing calls recorded by the service provider company indicate that on the day of the alleged incident there were {4} near about more than 25 incoming and outgoing calls between these cell phone holders not only after the alleged incident but till the complaint was lodged, but there were frequent calls between these two cell phone holders. Thus, there is prima facie evidence to show that there was regular contact between complainant and applicant on the day of the incident, before the incident occurred and even after the incident occurred till the complaint was lodged and if it is so, when now the investigation is over, there is no purpose to detain the applicant behind the bar for uncertain period. In view of this, the applicant deserve for the following order: ORDER (a) Criminal Application is allowed. (b) Applicant – Manik @ Munna Kamalakar Parse be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen thousand) and on executing P.R. Bond in the like amount. (c) Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] adb/criapln2609.10