{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3928 OF 2009 Manisha Popat Raikar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. J.V.Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State Mr. N.V.Gaware, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application u/s 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant, through her guardian, has prayed for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide order dated 22.05.2009 in criminal application No.570/2009. 2. Heard extensive arguments of learned counsel for applicant followed by learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the impugned order and the documents {2} annexed with the application. 3. It is alleged that the complainant was abducted from the custody of her parents and thereafter sexually ravished by respondent No.2. It appears that after arrest of respondent No.2, he moved bail application before the Court of Sessions, Ahmednagar. It further appears that the said application was decided by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide impugned order dated 22.05.2009, mainly relying on the certificate of date of birth of prosecutorix produced by respondent No.2 showing that she was major at the relevant time. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly contended that respondent No.2 has not misused the liberty granted to him by the lower court. Now, the only question requires consideration is whether respondent No.2 had obtained the order of bail from the Court of Sessions on the basis of school leaving certificate of another girl contending that the same was of the prosecutorix or not. Admittedly, two certificates were on record. On bare perusal of both the certificates it is clear that except date of birth everything is similar, including name, middle name, last name, place of birth. Coincidently, both the girls are taking education in the one and same school. It is quite natural that respondent No.2 might have sought certificate to the effect of birth in respect of the prosecutorix, however could have get the certificate of another girl having same particulars as that of the prosecutorix. Obviously, the {3} said certificate was produced by respondent No.2, before the lower court on the basis of which bail is granted to respondent No.2. There is no material on record to demonstrate that knowing full well that there is another girl taking education in the said school having same name and particulars but different date of birth, respondent No.2 has obtained the certificate and snatched the bail order. However, contrary is the case, the impugned order clearly states that the respondent No.2 produced one certificate whereas prosecution produced two certificates and the lower court relied on the certificate produced by respondent No.2. In the premise, there is no room for doubt the conduct of respondent No.2 and hence it cannot be said that deliberately he produced school leaving certificate of another girl who is major in age to obtain bail. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.2 has not played any fraud to obtain the order of bail. In the result, the application seeking cancellation of bail, is devoid of any merit and hence stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3928-09