IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2008 Faruq Hanif Shaikh .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. Rishi Bhuta for the applicant Mr. M.H.Mhatre APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 5TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 5TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 5TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. The prosecutrix was aged about 16 years when the incident had occurred on 5-11-2006. According to the prosecution, when the prosecutrix was alone at her house on 5-11-2006 the accused had been to the said place. The accused and the prosecutrix were on visiting terms as they were related. The accused is said to have forcibly committed sexual intercourse. The mother of the prosecutrix returned on the same day in the evening. The FIR came to be filed after a period of five days. The evidence of P.w.1 reveals that talks about marriage of the accused and the prosecutrix had taken place during the intervening period but the talks failed on account of demand of dowry and hence there was delay in filing of FIR. The reason for the delay is absent in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police. However, the explanation has come in the evidence. Record further reveals that P.W.No.2 had been to the residence of the prosecutrix when the accused was very much in the house. P.w.no.2 Jayashree has seen the prosecutrix in an awkward position when she was not wearing the pyjama and the accused was standing there. The accused, according to P.w.no.2 left the place during her presence. Despite questions being asked, the prosecutrix did not narrate the incident to P.w.no.2. There is no medical evidence available in the form of history which corroborates the prosecutrix. There is no incriminating evidence either in the form of medical report or chemical analyser’s report that corroborates the prosecution case. 2. Perused the judgment so also the evidence of P.w.nos.1 and 2. In my view this is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. He had been in custody initially for a period of three months and as the charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated period under section 167, the applicant was released on bail. During the trial also he was on bail. After the judgment, the applicant is in custody for about a period of three months. In the result, I direct that the applicant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which he was released on bail during the trial, however,on executing fresh bail bond. Application is disposed of. ....