(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1107 OF 2008. Shri Shankar Vishwanath Jadhav. ... Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. .... Mr.U.P. Waranjikar, Adv. for Applicant. Mr.V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No.107/2006 of Chandwad Police Station, District Nasik. The said case is mainly under section 376 of I.P.C. 3. It in the prosecution case that the prosecutrix is handicapped and her hands and legs are affected due to polio. The applicant entered into the house of the prosecutrix at night and (2) committed rape on the prosecutrix by use of force. The medical certificate shows that the prosecutrix sustained about 3 to 4 injuries, i.e. swelling on left cheek, bluish contusion on left upper lip about 8 cms. and abrasion on upper lip, etc. 4. The prosecutrix has stated in the complaint that she had resisted but the accused applied force and inserted cotton ball in her mouth, due to which she sustained injuries to her mouth. She was not able to open her mouth. On hearing noise made by the prosecutrix, the mother of the prosecutrix awoke and she saw that the applicant was lying on the prosecutrix and he was committing rape on the prosecutrix. The mother of the prosecutrix rushed towards the applicant who ran away leaving his shoe and motor cycle at that place. There is sufficient material to show the involvement of the applicant. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that when the earlier bail application came to be rejected, the C.A. report was not received. Now, the C.A. report has been received (3) and C.A. report is negative. The learned Advocate submitted that if the C.A. report is considered, it will show that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. No doubt, the C.A. report does not show presence of semen or blood. However, in my view, this not necessarily mean that the prosecution case is false. The statement of the prosecutrix who is a severely handicapped girl, clearly implicates the applicant. 6. Looking to the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail. The application is rejected. 7. The trial has already been expedited by order dated 11th April 2007. The trial has not yet begun. Looking to this fact, the trial is expedited and the trial be completed by 28th February 2009. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)