1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 251/2011 Umesh Subhashrao Madavi ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Wadner, Tah. Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. S. Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. C. N. Adgokar, A.P.P. for the respondent CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 19.9.2011. 1. Heard Mr. S. S. Joshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. C. N. Adgokar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Wadner Police Station, Crime No. 42/2010 registered for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), has filed this application. 3. The complaint has been lodged by the prosecutrix herself who is about 19 years old. Briefly stated, the case as stated by the prosecutrix is that on 30/04/2010, the applicant called the prosecutrix to accompany him for filling the form for service of Nurse and then took her to Wadki at the house of his father and kept her there under the pretext that he would give her the service 2 of Nurse. The allegation is that the applicant on various occasions assaulted the prosecutrix and had forcibly sexual intercourse with her and ultimately on 13/05/2011, she left a chit at the well wherein she wrote the name and the phone number of her Uncle Khushal Chahande, and a message to be given to her uncle that she has been forcibly kept by Umesh Madavi at Pimplapur Shivar. Thereafter, on 19/05/2011, the prosecutrix was brought back home and on 23/05/2011, a police report was lodged by prosecutrix. 5. The applicant submits that the complaint is false and that prosecutrix willingly stayed with him for a period of month. 6. In the reply, the respondent has resisted the application on the ground that there is strong prima facie evidence against the applicant. 7. From the case papers made available to this Court by the learned A.P.P,. it is seen that there is evidence of rupture of hymen of the prosecutrix. The Medical Officer has stated that there is evidence of sexual intercourse and of violent marks on the body. The medical evidence read with the complaint of the prosecutrix certainly reveals prima facie case against the applicant. 8. The defences like consent and delay in lodging the FIR cannot be looked into at this stage. 3 9. This is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Hence, the application is rejected. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Punde.