( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3270 OF 2010 Sow. Shobha w/o. Eknath Jaibhaye .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. By this application, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with crime No. I-276/2010, registered at Pathardi Police Station for offences under sections 376, 323, 109 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. 3. Allegedly, the prosecutrix had gone to a public ( 2 ) well in the village locality for washing of clothes. At about 11.00 a.m. she completed work of washing the clothes and was standing by side of the public well. It is alleged that she was called by the applicant and therefore the prosecutrix went near her house. It is further alleged that the applicant, when was asked by the prosecutrix as to why she had called her, immediately pulled her hand and pushed her inside the house. Further allegation is that the applicant immediately chained the door of the house from outside and sat outside the house. At that time the main accused Udhav, who had concealed himself inside the house, he pounced the prosecutrix and assaulted her while she was raising alarm. He allegedly dropped her on the ground and ravished her. The prosectrix went home sobbing on the way and immediately disclosed the incident to her mother. It was reported to her brother and father after they returned home. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant is being falsely implicated in the heinous crime. He would submit that he has got a mobile phone of the main accused on which conversation between him and the prosecutrix is stored and that there was love affair between ( 3 ) them. He contended that the applicant is likely to be humiliated on account of her arrest, notwithstanding the fact that she did not actively participate in the alleged act. I am afraid, all such contentions are not relevant at this juncture. If the applicant’s advocate has got mobile phone containing conversation between the prosecutrix and the main accused, he is at liberty to produce the same before the I.O. The very fact that such mobile phone of main accused is available with the applicant itself is indicative of their internal cordial relationship. The allegations in the F.I.R. purports to show that the applicant was instrumental in calling the prosecutrix and to pull her inside her own house. The alleged incident of rape did occur inside the house of the applicant. Obviously, it would have not occurred without her connivance. Whether it is outcome of love affair or the prosecutrix was forcibly fornicated or ravished inside the house is the matter of investigation. 5. Perusal of the injury certificate purports to show that the prosecutrix received contusion injury and one of the contusions on her right thigh was of 7 x 2 cms. The Medical Officer also noticed that the hymen was absent and the ( 4 ) private part was injured. These are prima facie indications of ravishment of the prosecutrix against her will. Under the circumstances, present application is destitute of substance and will have to be rejected. Hence, it is rejected. The application is disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/cra3270.10