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. 33 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2009 Sachin Anil Patil ...Applicant (Orig.Accused) vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.R.S. Alange for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant seeks bail on the ground that after 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, the trial has not proceeded any further since the prosecution has challenged two orders which were passed by the Sessions Court by filing an appropriate application in this court. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since last 15 months and no further progress has been made in the trial though 10 witnesses - 2 - have been examined. In the present case, the applicant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and it is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant had committed rape on the prosecutrix who was 11 years of age. 4. Taking into consideration the allegations which are made against the present applicant and the material which is on record, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 5. The application was made by the prosecution vide Exhibits 44 and 44 for bringing on record certain medical certificates which were not taken on record after the prosecution had examined the Medical Officer. This application was opposed by the present applicant on the ground of delay caused by the said Medical Officer in producing these documents. On account of the objection taken by the present applicant, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the applications filed by the State for production of the said documents. Against this order, the State has preferred an - 3 - application in this Court challenging the said orders. In this view of the matter, the applicant cannot claim any benefit since the delay has been caused on account of the objection raised by the present applicant herein to the production of documents by the State. The State has right to challenge these orders by filing appropriate proceedings in this Court. That cannot be a ground for seeking bail. 6. Hence, the application for bail is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)