1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3746 OF 2010 Rangnath s/o Prabhakar Bhaikar ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Tadkalas, Taluka and District Parbhani ..Respondent Mr.J.M.Murkute, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 22ndt October, 2010 PER COURT 1. By this application the applicant seeks his release on bail in Crime No.33/2010 registered by the Tadkalas Police Station, District Parbhani, for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 328, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The application filed by the present applicant before the Sessions Court at Parbhani came to be rejected by order dated 31.8.2010. 2. The applicant is alleged to have taken the victim who was 17 years of age to Pune. The incident is alleged to have committed on 15.5.2010 and the victim returned back on 19.5.2010 and accordingly a complaint 2 came to be lodged. In the supplementary statement recorded on the same day the victim alleged to have stated about the rape being committed by the present applicant. 3. Mr.Murkute, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before me that in the first information report there is no disclosure about the alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and it is only subsequently when the supplementary statement of victim came to be recorded that allegations under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code were made against the present applicant. In any event this is a matter which has to be appreciated after the parties lead evidence. Suffice it to state that there are allegations against the present applicant and the allegations of rape stand substantiated, prima facie, by the medical report of the complainant/victim that her hymen was found torn and the injury had occurred 4 to 5 days prior to her examination. In the light of existence of strong prima facie case, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this application. 4. Accordingly, this application is rejected there being no merit in the application. ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3746.10criappln) 3