1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3358 OF 2007 Pappu @ Prabhakar Venkatrao Deshmukh.. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr. Amin Solkar for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 22nd January 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been charged with an offence punishable u/s.376, 341, 452, 506 of the IPC r/w sec.3(1)(12) and 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities Act. The applicant was arrested on 11th May 2007 and is in custody since then. The charge-sheet has been filed but the trial is not likely to commence in the near 2 future. 3. The prosecutrix filed a First Information report on 13th April 2007 alleging that she was raped five months ago, couple of days after Diwali once and again after 2 to 3 days. Since the complainant claims to belong to a Hindu Mahar caste, the applicant has also been charged under the Atrocities Act though there is no allegation that the offence of rape was committed because the applicant belonged to a scheduled caste. 4. The complainant was sent for medical examination and on examination the hymen was found ruptured and two fingers could easily pass in the vagina. Prior to the rape the prosecutrix claims to be a virgin. The medical opinion does not indicate only two incidences of intercourse but the prosecutrix appears to be habituated to sex. 5. Earlier application made by the applicant to Sessions Court was rejected on the ground that the prosecutrix was minor and the possibility of pressure being put on her cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant resides in a different city and would not put pressure on her and would not even visit the town 3 where the prosecutrix resides. 6. Taking an overall view of the matter and in particular the fact that the FIR was lodged after five months of the alleged rape, the medical opinion and also the fact that the applicant is in custody for more than 8 months and the trial is not likely to commence in the near future, in my view, the applicant is entitled to a conditional bail. 7. The applicant is accordingly released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each subject to the condition that the applicant shall not make any inducement or threats to the prosecutrix or any of the prosecution witnesses and shall not enter Village Vival, Taluka Karmala where the prosecutrix resides except for the purpose of reporting to the police station which he shall do once a month between 1st and 10th day of every British Calendar month. 8. It is clarified that all observations relating to the merits of the case are only prima facie and shall not be taken into consideration by the court at the time of trial. 4 (D.G. KARNIK, J)