cra3113.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3113 OF 2011 Jitendra Daga Patil, Age-26 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Malpur, Tq-Shindkheda, Dist-Dhule. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Nardana, Tq-Shindkheda, Dist-Dhule. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.Vijay B. Patil Advocate for Applicant. Shri.S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This Application is filed for bail in C.R. No.30 of 2011 registered in Nardana Police cra3113.11 2 Station, Tq-Shindkheda, Dist-Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366(A), 343, 109, 114, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The papers of investigation were made available. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by the prosecutrix. She has made allegations that present Applicant forcibly took her in four wheeler to Surat on 26th February, 2011 and she was detained there in one room by virtually locking the room, upto 2nd March, 2011. She has made allegations that in that room, the Applicant raped her at-least on two occasions. She has contended that some persons from her village rescued her on 2nd March, 2011. The report came to be given on 2nd April, 2011. 3. The Advocate of the Applicant argued that the report was given late and as the prosecutrix had crossed the age of 17 years, even at this cra3113.11 3 stage inference can be drawn that there was her consent. This Court holds that not much can be made out due to the delay caused in giving report and it is not possible to draw inference at this stage. Medical evidence shows that there was tear of hymen. School leaving certificate shows that the prosecutrix has just completed 17 years of age on the date of incident. When girl of such age is involved in the incident, the parents of the girl do not dare to give the report immediately. 4. It is not the case of the Applicant that he had married with the girl, only argument is that there was consent of the girl. It was submitted that the statements of the driver of the vehicle etc. do not show that force was used. In view of the statement of the prosecutrix, other things need not be considered at this stage. There is sufficient material to make out prima facie case of kidnapping and for offence of rape. There is clear possibility of tampering with the cra3113.11 4 prosecution witnesses. So, the bail cannot be granted to the Applicant. The Advocate of the Applicant requested for expeditious disposal of the case as the Applicant is behind bars since 2nd April, 2011. 5. The Criminal Application stands rejected. The Sessions Court is to take steps for expeditious disposal of the case and dispose of the case within FOUR MONTHS from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] asb/AUG11