1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2247 /2009 (Gunwanta s/o Doma Barai vs. State of Maharashtra ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. .......................................................................................................................................................... Mr S G Karmarkar Adv.for applicant Mr D.P. Thakare, APP for Respondent-State C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 14 th August, 2009. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in respect of Crime No. 75/2008 reported on 7th December, 2008 at Narkhed Police Station Dist. Nagpur, for offence punishable under sections 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, at the instance of complaint by the father of the victim, who is aged about 15 years, at the time of the incident. In the FIR itself the name of the applicant figured that he had kidnapped Mala daughter of first informant. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant made a reference to the rulings in Sayed Mallomiyah Sayed vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 All MR (Cri) 1 - ( B H Marlapalle, J.) and Ramkrishna Burkule v/s. State of Maharashtra 1997 (3) Crimes 364 ( Datar, J.), in order to submit that notwithstanding serious accusations of kidnapping and rape, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. I have perused the ruling in Sayed’s case (supra). It appears that prima facie it did not reflect that the victim was not a consenting party. Under the circumstances, the application was allowed. In Ramkrishna’s case ( supra), the victim was aged about 13 years and the accused had taken her to various places and had sexual intercourse with her. It was not disputed that the applicant was insisting her to marry with him and had threatened to commit suicide if she declined. Under these circumstances, although bail application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on the basis of statement made that the applicant that he will stay at a native place, it was considered as a fit case to 2 grant bail, of course, on certain conditions. 3. In my opinion, both the rulings cited above, would not be of any help to the applicant in the present case, for the simple reason that the accusations are extremely serious. Although initially offence was reported under sec. 363 and 366(A), on the basis of investigation more serious accusations for offence punishable u/ss. 376, 420, 469, 506 IPC along with section 3 (1)(xii) & 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 ( in short the “Atrocities Act”) were also applied. The statement of the victim in the case alleged that the applicant/ accused had enticed her on the pretext that she will accompany her to Nagpur and they will return back after witnessing Navratra Utsav; when she refused to accompany with him, he used force, took her to Railway station under a threat that the victim will be thrown at Railway track and would be killed and the applicant would himself commit suicide. Due to duress and fear, the victim had accompanied with him to Narkhed Railway station and thereafter Nagpur and Ramtek etc. Thus, she was taken to Ramtek, Pandhurna, Bhopal and it is alleged that he had forcibly committed rape upon her. In the course of investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded indicating as to how the applicant had taken victim to various places. Medical certificate collected during the course also indicated that the applicant is a minor girl aged about 15 years. The medical certificate also indicated vagina admits a finger easily. Thus, she was prima facie subjected to sexual intercourse. 4. Considering the nature of the accusations and the quantum of imprisonment up to 10 years for offences alleged, apart from stringent provisions of Atrocities Act, the applicant is not entitled for benefit of bail. Application is rejected. We expect the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the trial. JUDGE. sahare