{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1406 OF 2010 Ferozkhan Sahebkhan Tadvi APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.J.R.Shaikh, Advocate for the applicant Mr.B.V.Wagh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th May 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is a second attempt of the applicant for seeking bail after his first application was rejected by this Court. The present application is filed contending change in circumstance as admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Jalgaon on 09.03.2010 and numbered as RCC No.111/2010.. 2. The applicant, by the present application, has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.14/2010 registered with Jalgaon city police station for an offence punishable u/s 376, {2} 417, 448, 452, 354, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the charge sheet is filed, yet it is informed that the committal order is not yet passed in the present case. 3. It appears that the present offence is registered on the complaint of one Asma Shafiq Shaikh in respect of her sexual ravishment in the night between 31st January 2010 and 1st February 2010. Perusal of the complaint indicates that immediately on the next day of the incident, the prosecutorix received a phone call from one Shaikh Shakiboddin @ Shakib Ustad directing the prosecutorix not to lodge the compliant in the police station and hence delay of one day is caused in lodging the complaint. It appears that after lodging of the complaint, the prosecutorix was examined medically and clothes on her person, which she had at the time of alleged incident, were also seized under a Panchanama along with the bed sheet from the bed where the alleged incident has taken place. The clothes of the prosecutorix and the bed sheet were sent for chemical examination. Report of chemical analysis indicates finding of semen on the inner garments of the prosecutorix as well as on the bed sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to project history of previous love affair between the applicant and the prosecutorix and tried to urge that as the applicant refused to marry with the prosecutorix the complaint has been lodged. It is {3} informed that the love affair was stopped prior to 1 and 1 ½ year of the incident. It appears from the statement of the prosecutorix that 1 and 1 ½ month before the alleged incident, the applicant had tried to ravish her, however at that time the prosecutorix kept mum. It appears that the applicant has taken the silence of the complainant as license to ravish her as per his whims. Statements of the neighbours recorded by the police, to the effect that during the night hours they have heard shouts from the room of the prosecutorix, however they did not try to rescue her and came to know about the alleged incident from the prosecutorix on the next day, support the case of the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to urge that at the most the act alleged against the applicant can be said to be an act by consent. However, considering the fact that the applicant had bitten the prosecutorix on the chin, which has reflected in the medical examination, it cannot be said that the alleged act of the applicant was an act by consent. At this stage it is not necessary to evaluate the material collected during the investigation as to whether the same is sufficient to convict the accused or not, however it has to bear in mind that if the applicant is released on bail whether the life of the witnesses and prosecutorix will be safe or not. It is not necessary that in every case corroboration of the statement of the prosecutorix is essential. From the fact that the prosecutorix was directed by Shakibbodin not to lodge the complaint against the applicant it is clear that the applicant is {4} instrumental in pressurizing the complainant even before lodging of the FIR. In the premise, if the applicant it released on bail, at this stage, then there will be danger to the life of the prosecutorix and possibility of tampering of witnesses. 6. Consequently, considering the severity of the matter, the application stands rejected. 7. However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for a considerable time, the trial against the applicant is expedited. Learned Sessions Judge / Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the trial will be assigned, is directed to dispose of the trial against the applicant within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the accused before the Court. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1406-10