..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2378 OF 2008 Mrs.Rohini Manoj Shrimali. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Ms.Shaikh Dasna, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 12th August, 2008. DATED : 12th August, 2008. DATED : 12th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.96 of 2008 of Ghatkopar Police Station. The said case is mainly under Section 376 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant is related to the prosecutrix. The applicant got the prosecutrix to her house and insisted that the prosecutrix should have sexual relations with the husband of the applicant. The prosecutrix did not agree. Thereupon the applicant herself forcibly ..(2).. removed the clothes on the body of the prosecutrix and she assisted her husband to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that there is delay of almost three months in lodging the FIR. It is seen that the prosecutrix was a young girl of about 15 years. It is seen that in cases of rape, invariably there is delay on account of various factors. The prosecutrix was 15 years old at the time of the incident. The applicant is a close relative of the prosecutrix. Moreover the applicant and her husband has threatened the prosecutrix that she should not disclose the incident to anyone. 5. Looking to all these facts, even if there is delay in lodging the FIR, in my opinion, it would not affect the prosecution case. Looking to the material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)