1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1387 OF 2010 Kishor S/o.Chaitram Patil, Age-21 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Dagdi-Sabgavhan, Tq.Parola, Dist. Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Ms.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned AGP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 04/05/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.5/2010, registered in Parola Police Station of Dist. Jalgaon, for the offence punishable u/s. 376, 506, 452 of IPC, in which the applicant came to be arrested on 02/01/2010, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 16/02/2010 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Parola, and the case was numbered as RCC No.29/10. This is the second bail application of the applicant as his first bail application was rejected by this Court on 16/02/2010. 2 2. Considering the submissions across the bar, it appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Harshalabai, who is the wife of maternal cousin of the applicant. The offence was registered after the delay of 1½ months of the alleged incident. In the premise, even though immediately after registration of an offence, the prosecutrix was medically examined, and admittedly at that time she was carrying 26 weeks pregnancy, and no evidence of instant sexual ravishment was found present on the person of the prosecutrix. In the premise, case of the prosecution ought to rest on the circumstances and the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. The witnesses, whose statements are recorded during the course of investigation are the family members of prosecutrix as well as the applicant, who are close relatives and residing in the same vicinity just in front of the house of each other. The statements of the neighbourers and the other persons of the same locality which were recorded during the course of investigation are the statements on the basis of hearsay information and not based on the direct evidence about the allegations of occurence of the alleged incident. No doubt, the alleged incident is a heinous crime, but at the same time, it is to be considered that on the last occasion, the bail application of the applicant was rejected on two grounds, as some threats were given to the prosecutrix that the applicant will assault the husband of prosecutrix, if the prosecutrix discloses the incident to the other relatives, and secondly at that time, the investigation is in progress. Now the investigation is over. Thus now the fact is rulled out that the 3 witnesses may be tampered. Then only question remains about the threats given by the applicant to the husband of the prosecutrix and the other family members. The fact remains that, considering the close relation between the prosecutrix and the applicant, this apprehension can be taken care if certain stringent conditions are put on the applicant. In the premise, the application to be allowed on the following conditions : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to enter in village Dagdi- Sabgavhan, Tal.Parola, Dist. Jalgaon, till disposal of trial. 4. After released on bail, applicant to furnish his address to the Investigation Officer and to report the nearest police station twice a month till disposal of the trial. 5. Application stands disposed of in terms of above order. (A.V.POTDAR) JUDGE khs/MAY 2010/cri.appl.1387-10