1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 520 OF 2011 (Raj Prakash Shaha .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.M. Daga, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 12TH OCTOBER, 2011. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking his enlargement on bail in Crime No. 196/2010 registered at Police Station, Ramnagar, Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Before considering the merits of the application, few facts are necessary to consider the application. The present application is a third attempt in consequence by the applicant for his prayer to release him on bail. This Court, by order dated 08th February, 2011, rejected the application of the applicant. In the said order, this Court observed that the Criminal Application No. 2041 of 2010 was the second attempt of the applicant and the perusal of the record would show that the first attempt of the applicant was by way of Criminal Application No. 1530 of 2010. In the order dated 08th February, 2011, this Court, by considering the material and more particularly the final report which is filed by the investigating agency, on conclusion of the investigation, found that the applicant was not entitled for release on bail. The order dated 08th February, 2011 was challenged by preferring Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the Apex Court passed the following order on 07.03.2011 :- “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 We find no valid ground to entertain the Special Leave Petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner may renew his application for bail before the High Court after six months.” Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the applicant fairly submits that though the Apex Court did not find any favour with the applicant, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his request and accordingly the present application is filed. He further submits that the applicant is a young boy, prosecuting his studies of B.Com. course and is behind the bars for the period more than 14 months. He further submits that the charge sheet is filed and as such no further material is to be collected by the investigating agency. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that though the ground is not raised in the application and prays to raise the additional ground orally before this Court on the backdrop of the supplementary statement recorded by the investigating agency on 01.08.2010 of the victim Pooja, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Shri M.J. Khan, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/State strongly opposes the application. He submits that the application of the applicant was considered on merits by this Court and on considering the material this Court, by an order dated 08th February, 2011, rejected the prayer of the applicant. Learned APP further submits that there are no grounds to show or to say that there is any change in circumstance so as to consider the application of the applicant afresh by this Court. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/State at length. It is not in dispute that this Court while considering the material, observed that the applicant made purposeful attempt to develop the intimacy with victim Pooja. It is further observed that on giving assurance of marriage, the applicant has forced the victim to accompany him in a vacant apartment and the victim was subjected to sexual exploitation at the hands of the 3 applicant. This Court also observed that in the material collected by the investigating agency, it was revealed that the apartment/ flat where the victim was sexually exploited had hole in between the bed room and the bathroom and an apprehension was expressed by the victim that the intimacy between the victim and the applicant might have been recorded. It is also revealed in the investigation that one other victim Taranjeet @ Pinky Bawa was also subjected to the exploitation at the hands of this applicant. In short, there is enough material to show the involvement of the applicant in a serious offence of ravishing a girl. The ground raised by the applicant that he is a student prosecuting his studies and is behind the bars for the period more than 14 months are not themselves sufficient to consider the application of the applicant on the backdrop of the serious offence committed by the applicant. Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel for the applicant, by referring the statement, stated that the victim purchased “Mangalsutra” from one jewellery shop and as such tried to submit that it is the case of the consent theory. Even this ground would be of no help to the applicant for the reasons that it is a consistent statement and say of the victim that on the assurance of marriage, the applicant was ravishing the victim and exploited her sexually. On considering all these facts and the material on record, I am of the opinion that this is not the case where the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.