(1) CR.APP.1330.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1330 OF 2009 Mahadeo @ Prashant S/o Digambar Karpe, Age : 28 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Jawalban, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Yusufwadgaon Police Station, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed (Copy to be served on P.P. of High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Applicant Smt. R.R. Mane, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The applicant is seeking bail in crime no. 13 of 2009 registered at Yusufwadgaon Police Station, Dist. Beed on 24.2.2009 for offences punishable under section 376, 366, 323, 506 IPC. (2) CR.APP.1330.2009 2] The complainant alleged that on 21.2.2009 the applicant committed rape on her at about 1:30 – 2:00 pm. She said that while she was returning from college at about 1:30 pm., the applicant stopped her and asked her to sit on the rear side of his motorcycle. Despite her resistance, he forced her to ride with him. He then took her to a road-side cattle-shed where he raped her. The complainant came back and narrated the incident to her mother on the same day but the complainant waited till her brother came from Kallamb. Thereafter, on 24.2.2009 the complaint was lodged. 3] The complainant has explained the delay in lodging of the complaint. There is apparently no possibility of false implication. Had this case been a consensual sexual encounter, the complainant would not have made any grievance about it. The complainant had no reason such as she being spotted in the company of the applicant etc., to lodge a false complaint. There is no possibility of the (3) CR.APP.1330.2009 complainant being in love of the applicant ,because there is vast age difference between the two. The applicant is not a college going student. He is 28 years person, whereas the complainant is only 18 years old girl. 4] The question still remains as to why the complainant meekly succumbed to the applicant’s pressure for riding his motorcycle and then submitting herself to his sexual advances. The prosecution brought on record that the applicant is a rowdy and aggressive person. He has been facing as many as four cases of violence. The last one is a case where he is charged under section 326 and rioting alongwith certain provisions of the Arms Act. This indicates that the applicant is a bully in the society and due to his terrorising personality, the complainant might have got cowed down and ultimately got ravished. (4) CR.APP.1330.2009 5] A strong case is seen against the applicant and in view of the antecedents of the applicant, he does not deserve bail. Besides this, I am told today that the Sessions case is already posted for recording of evidence. The charge against the applicant is also framed. The application, therefore stands rejected. 6] Observations made in this order, are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not influence the trial Court. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/25june9/cr1330.09