1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.294 OF 2010 Kishor Chaitram Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ........ Mr.B.R.Varamaa, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondent State. ........ [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 16th February 2010 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.5/2010 registered with Parola Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as the applicant is arrested on 02.01.2010 and since then he is in jail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 3. According to learned counsel for applicant the FIR is delayed as the same is registered after 1 and half month of the 2 incident and also missing the particulars in respect of the date and time of commission of rape. It is also urged that as a dispute is pending on financial transactions between the husband of the complainant and the real brother of the applicant and in respect of the same a complaint was lodged on 02.01.2010 and hence to give counter blast to the said complaint, the applicant is falsely implicated in this offence. It is urged that considering the above circumstances and in view of the fact that the applicant is in jail for more than 40 days, he be released on bail. 4. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that considering the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation which indicate that the applicant had an evil eye on the complainant, which has resulted in the said crime. It is also urged that the investigation is still in progress and the relations between the husband of the complainant and the applicant are real cousin brother and they reside in the same village and if released on bail, he may pressurize the witnesses and the investigation may hamper. 5. Considering the rival submissions, it requires to take into account the complaint, as the complainant is a married woman and was carrying 7 months pregnancy at the time of the said incident and the statement disclosed by her is not a reward to be shown with proud but it is a shameful act, which in fact is a stigma on her person. Had the incident 31.12.2009 in respect of teasing by applicant not occurred the said offence would not have seen the light 3 of the day. Courts must be sensitized in such matters, as the lady has staked her reputation, which would cast a stigma on her character and hence it cannot be said that merely due to quarrel between her husband and brother of the applicant, the present compliant has been lodged. Though it is urged that it is a false and concocted story just to implicate the applicant, yet fact remains that if the lady has come forward to lodge the complaint staking her reputation in respect of the act of the applicant to ravish a lady in her pregnancy and extending threats to the life of her husband then he must not be released on bail as there may be danger to the life of the complainant so also to the witnesses. In the premise and as the investigation is in progress, no case to release the applicant on bail though the FIR is lodged belatedly. 6. In the result, the application which is sans merits stands rejected. It is however made clear that the above observations are prima facie observations based on the record before this Court. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) drp/A10/criapln294-10