1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1604 OF 2010 Sanjay Manik Shinde, Age-40 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Village Shirud, Tq. and Dist. Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.B.R.Warma, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.D.V.Tele, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 02/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No. 14/10, registered in Dhule Taluka Police Station, in which he came to be arrested on 15/01/2010, wherein after investigation is over, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Dhule and now the case is waiting for its committal. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. It appears that on the complaint of mother of the victim Manisha by name Bhimabai Ratke, the offence came to be registered about the incident took place in the event of 12/01/2010. According to the complainant, when the prosecutrix was sent to grocery shop, on her way back, when she reached near Shani Mandir, in front of dispensary of Dr.Gajare, the applicant lifted her, and taken her in the river bed, and thereafter sexually ravished her. While she was forcibly taken to the river bed, it was witnessed by some 4-5 persons, who also followed them, but unable to apprehend them. Then the complaint was lodged after the span of about 48 years, i.e. in the early hours of 15/01/2010. 4. After arrest of applicant, he was referred for medical examination, as well as the prosecutrix was also referred for medical examination. At the same time, clothes on the person of the prosecutrix and applicant were removed, under the panchnama, in presence of panch witnesses and sent it for opinion of expert. 5. So far as report of medical examination of the prosecutrix is concerned, it shows that there are recent marks of sexual ravishment, while the medical examination report of applicant is silent on this point. So far as CA report about the semen and blood stains found on the under garments of prosecutrix and applicant is concerned, it do not support the incident as narrated by the complainant. 3 6. During the course of submissions, much hue and cry was made on behalf of applicant about the investigation carried out about proof of age of prosecutrix. Admittedly, it is not the defence of applicant that the applicant with consent of prosecutrix committed this act. The fact remains that the CA report and the medical examination report do not support the version as made out in the complaint as well as in the statement of prosecutrix, even though corroborated by the statement of the eye witnesses recorded during the investigation. In the result, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail, hence order - O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/-and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to enter village Shirud, Tal. and Dist.Dhule till the trial against applicant is finally disposed of. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.1604-10