1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.664 OF 2010 Subhash S/o.Kalyan Waghmare, Age-20 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Gaikarwadi, Tq.Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 24/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail, after his earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7/12/2009. As now the charge sheet is filed and investigation is over, the second round of litigation before this Court. 2. After hearing learned counsel for applicant and learned APP for State, it can not be disputed that on the complaint of one Manisha, aged about 16 years as per the complaint, an offence came to be registered, as she was forcefully abducted by the applicant when she 2 had been to her maternal uncle's house and out of the residence in the afternoon of 24/09/2009 in response to attend nature's call, where the applicant was present and forcibly dragged her on his motor bike and taken her to Ahmednagar, and from there they travelled by ST bus to Beed and at Beed, stayed for 22 days at the residence of friend of applicant in his absence, but with his relatives. On 15/10/2009, when they were noticed by others, her maternal uncle picked her up and brought to the Shrigonda Police Station where the complaint came to be lodged. 3. During the course of submissions, my attention was drawn towards the earlier order passed by me on 07/12/2009 wherein I have taken a note that at this stage it is not safe to release the applicant accused on bail. Now it is pointed out that considering the medical evidence on record, which indicates that there are no fresh bodily injuries and it is opined by the medical officer who has examined the prosecutrix that there are no signs of forceful intercourse. In this light, as now the investigation is over, it is prayed to release the applicant on bail. 4. According to learned APP, there are no change in circumstances and the statement of prosecutrix earlier recorded if accepted as it is, and even though the charge sheet is filed, according to him, filing of the charge sheet do not change the scenario. The evidence available on 07/12/2009 is the same available today also. It is one of the ground to oppose the bail application that the age of 3 prosecutrx is below 16 years, hence she can not be termed as consenting party. 5. In my earlier order dated 07/12/2009, medical evidence was not available, which is now available after filing of the charge sheet. Medical evidence make it clear that there is no forceful act of intercourse on the prosecutrix. On the contrary, no external injuries were noticed when the prosecutrix was examined on 17/10/2009 after she lodged the complaint on 16/10/2009. During the period of 22 days, the prosecutrix was in the company of applicant where physical contacts were established in between them. In spite of these contacts, if on examination of prosecutrix, no external injuries or fresh injuries are found on the person of prosecutrix, and no signs of forceful act of intercourse is found, it can not be said that there was forceful intercourse at the hands of applicant. 6. Now turning to the point about age of the prosecutrix, rule is given in the judgment reported in 2004 All MR (Cri.) 1, by this High Court only, that merely on the ground of age of the prosecutrix is 16 years or below 16 years, but other circumstances shows that she has not denied that she is a consenting party, then bail to be granted. In view of this rule given by this court, and if there is change in circumstances, then the order earlier passed on 07/12/2009 require modification. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 4 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing the PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to enter in village Gavkarwadi, Tal.Karjat, where the prosecutrix and her parents are residing, till trial against him will finally disposed of. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.664-10