1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 273 OF 2011 Raju @ Rajesh S/o Anandrao Ingole ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Deoli. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, Adv. for applicant. Mr.D.B. Patel , APP for the State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI J. DATE : 07.07.2 011 . One Pallavi Aate r/o village Bhidi, district Wardha, was studying in 11th Standard. She got acquainted with one Sushil Wankhede and developed intimacy. On some occasions, the said Sushil Wankhede had sexual intercourse with her. 2. On 11.9.2010, Sushil Wankhede by promising her that he would perform marriage with her, carried her with him. Firstly, they went to Deoli and from there they went to Yavatmal. On reaching at Yavatamal, they hired a room. The present applicant who was with them during their journey from Deoli to Yavatmal, had also come to the hotel at Yavatmal. On the pretext of ordering food, Sushil Wankhede went outside and left her in the company of present 2 applicant. Finding her alone, the present applicant had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The said Sushil did not turn up in the night. Therefore, prosecutrix and the present applicant were in the room. On the next day in the early morning at 5 a.m. again the present applicant had sexual intercourse with her. 3. Thereafter the present applicant carried her to the bus- stand at Yavatmal and left her. The prosecutrix called her maternal uncle who resides in Yavatmal. The maternal uncle was not in the town. She went to his house and on 15.9.2010 she lodged report. As per the prosecution, the date of birth of the girl is 15.4.1995 that means on the date of offence she was below 16 years of age. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the case of the prosecution that the present applicant had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix is unbelievable. The circumstances like prosecutrix keeeping mum, not crying for help and then report being lodged on 15.9.2010 are relevant and in that light of the matter, the accused/applicant may be released on bail. 5. At the time of incident prosecutrix was student of 11th Std. and below 16 years of age. Taking undue advantage of her immaturity, her friend Sushil Wankhede kidnapped her after promising that he would be marrying her. The incident 3 narrated by the prosecutrix points out that she fell pray to the promise of Sushil Wankhede and the present applicant finding her helpless took advantage of the situation and committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix being below 16 years of age her consent is immaterial. In view of strong prima faice case made out against the accused, the application is rejected. JUDGE Hirekhan.