1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2186 OF 2009 Imtiaz A.Rokadia .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Girish Kulkarni for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 8TH MAY, 2009. DATED : 8TH MAY, 2009. DATED : 8TH MAY, 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.132 of 2009 of Goregaon police station, Mumbai. The crime has been registered against the applicant and one another for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 376, 384 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. I have heard Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant for sometime. He invited my attention to the complaint and submitted that there was long delay in making allegations of rape on the present applicant. The first act of alleged rape was sometime in October, 2008, the second was in November, 2008, and thereafter in January and February, 2009. It is true that the prosecutrix kept quiet till she filed 2 2 2 the present complaint dated 2.5.2009. However, in the last paragraph of the complaint she has explained as to why she did not approach the police earlier or she disclose the commission of rape to her husband. It appears that nude photographs of the complainant were taken by the applicant and he was keeping her under constant threat that if she disclosed about the act of rape to her husband or to any other person, he would show the photographs to her family members. The threats made the complainant to keep quiet for long time. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant, in support, placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in Sunil Laxman Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra Sunil Laxman Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra Sunil Laxman Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1693 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1693 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1693. Having considered the manner in which offence of rape has been committed, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, in my opinion, would not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence the application is rejected. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. 3 3 3 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)