(1) CRI. APLN. 4756.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4756 OF 2010 Kishor Namdeo Suryawanshi, Age : 21 years, Occu.: Student, R/o Umardara, Tq. Shirur-Anantpal, District Latur Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Shirur-Anantpal, Tq. Shirur-Anantpal, District Latur Respondent ..... Mr. A.V. Patil (Indrale), Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for bail. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with crime no. 116 of 2010 registered for offence punishable under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers. (2) CRI. APLN. 4756.2010 4. The FIR purports to show that on 18.10.2010. The applicant allured minor son of the informant, namely, Mahadev aged about 4 years to go with him under the pretext that he would be given a chocolate. The applicant took the child with him towards his house. After about half an hour the child returned home. The child was crying. On enquiry, the child narrated to his mother that the applicant gave him a chocolate and thereafter committed unnatural carnal intercourse with him. The mother noticed, on verification of the person of the child that the anus was bleeding and the underwear (chaddi) of the minor was also stained with blood. She called up the neighbours and showed them such fact by showing the anus and the chaddi of the minor son. She lodged FIR after her husband came back home. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations against the applicant and therefore the story is improper. He would submit that the applicant is a student and should be granted bail. It is argued that there was delay in filing of (3) CRI. APLN. 4756.2010 the FIR. 6. Perusal of the investigation papers prima facie show that statement of the minor (Mahadev) was recorded during the course of investigation. He corroborated the allegations of the sodomy. The neighbouring witnesses also prima facie lent corroboration to the story of the unnatural act committed by the applicant. It is true that there was delay in taking the minor victim to the Medical Centre at Shirur Anantpal. The Medical Officer opined that there was no evidence adduced of any carnal intercourse. Still, however, it is important to note that the minor was examined by the Medical Officer, Shirur Anantpal on 21.10.2010, whereas the incident alleged by the prosecutrix is said to have taken place on 18.10.2010. It is in this context that there is eye witness account of the mother of the minor and the neighbours, who noticed blood oozing from the anus of the minor and stains of blood on his chaddi. There is also statement of Dr. Deepak Panshette, who immediately attended the minor after the incident. He stated before the Police that he had (4) CRI. APLN. 4756.2010 seen bleeding from the anus of the minor victim and there was a slit inside the tract of the anus. 7. In this view of the matter, the subsequent opinion of the Medical Officer is of no much importance. The offence is heinous. This is a case of child abuse. The helpless child was subjected to the heinous act of carnal sexual intercourse committed by the applicant and, therefore, I do not find any merit in the Application. The Application is dismissed. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp