( 1 ) cra4793.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4793 OF 2010 Dipchand s/o. Sampat Patil .. Applicant Age. 37 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Adarsh Colony, Shindkheda, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Nandurbar. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 10.12.2010 P.C. :- 1. By this application, the applicant seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No. 40 of 2010 registered at Sarangkheda Police Station (Dist. Nandurbar) for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 341 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 (1) (x) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of ( 2 ) cra4793.10 Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused investigation papers. 3. It appears prima facie that the prosecutrix was taking education in Mahatma Jyotiba Phule School at Nandurbar. It is a boarding school and she used to reside in the hostel of the school. She did not like residing in the hostel. Her brother Vivek, who runs an ape rickshaw, had reached her up till village Prakasha on 13th September, 2010 at about 9 a.m. The prosecutrix, however, did not go to Nandurbar from Prakasha, but went to Shahada. Her father was previously working as Gramsevak and therefore her family members used to reside at Shahada. She had developed friendship with one Salim Shaikh Jumma. She resided at his house for couple of days. Thereafter, she went to the house of her uncle at village Prakasha. On 21.09.2010 she went to the house of the friend i.e. Salim Shaikh Jumma. 4. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that when she had ( 3 ) cra4793.10 been to the house of Salim Shaikh Jumma, she came across Surekhabai Patil. Salim suggested to her that Surekhabai was residing alone and therefore she can reside with Surekhabai. Said Surekhabai told her that she can reside with her together, because she too was residing alone. After sometime in the evening, said Surekhabai contacted someone on cell phone. At about 9 p.m. two persons came to the house. Said Surekhabai introduced the applicant to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was told that the applicant was running a big educational institution and that he will arrange for her employment and will give handsome amount to her. 5. The prosecution alleges that the prosecutrix was thereafter instructed by Surekha Patil to do the work as may be told by the applicant. She was frightened and tried to run away from the house. Thereupon, Surekha Patil pushed her inside the house and asked her to sleep with the applicant. She was threatened that otherwise she will be eliminated. The entrance door was closed from outside by Surekha Patil and thereafter the applicant forcibly placed the prosecutrix on a nearby cot. He pressed her mouth, as she was making ( 4 ) cra4793.10 attempt to cry out. He threatened her and forcibly ravished her. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is framed in the false criminal case. It is argued that the entire story of the prosecution is inconsistent. My attention is invited to the additional statement of the prosecutrix. She gave additional statement to the fact that on 18.09.2010, she was ravished by Sunil Gavali at Shahada, under the pretext that he was ready to marry her. She further narrated that earlier she did not refer to such an incident due to her disturbed mental condition. The learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant is falsely implicated because the prosecutrix wanted to pressurize him for extraction of easy money. 7. It prima facie appears that the applicant is an influential person. It appears prima facie that the prosecutrix was not willing to reside in hostel at Nandurbar. She is a member of Scheduled Caste. She had gone to Shahada ( 5 ) cra4793.10 from village Prakasha, instead of going to the hostel. It appears that she was assured by Sunil Gavali that he would marry her. She allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her on his assurance of marrying her. So far as the story that she was taken by Surekha Patil to village Kothali is concerned, it is important to notice that statements of witnesses such as Suresh Shirsath etc. prima facie go to show that he noticed the fact that the prosecutrix was taken to village Kothali by Surekha Patil. The prosecutrix told him that on 23rd September, 2010, that she had been to village Kothali along with Surekha Patil. She, thereafter, had gone to the house of Surekha Patil. The Statement of Suresh Shirsath shows that Surekha Patil was known to be a woman of easy virtues. Therefore, he along with other 10-11 persons went to the house of Surekha Patil and enquired with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix then narrated the incident to him. Thus, to the extent of story regarding taking away of the prosecutrix by Surekha Patil to village Kothali, there is corroboration available from the statements of witnesses who are inhabitants of village Kothali. It, prima facie, appears that the prosecutrix had no previous enmity with the ( 6 ) cra4793.10 applicant. She had no reason to falsely implicate him in such a serious case of heinous charge. It may be gathered that Surekha Patil purposefully had taken the young prosecutrix to her house with ill-intention to force her to indulge in the flesh trade. The version of the prosecutrix, prima facie, shows that she was forcibly placed on the cot and the applicant committed sexual intercourse after pressing her mouth and that she was detained in the house of Surekha Patil at the relevant time. In view of such prima facie evidence available against the applicant, it is difficult to grant discretionary relief of bail to him. He is likely to influence the witnesses and moreover the charge is of serious nature. 8. In the result, the application is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/cra4793.10