1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.360 OF 2010 Shilappa Gonappa Bhande .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. Mr. V.V. Purwant for the applicant. Mrs. N.M. Deshmukh APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant has filed this second application for bail. His first application for bail was rejected on 30/11/2009. It is submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed just two days prior to the said order on 28/11/2009 and, as such, the applicant’s counsel did not have benefit of going through the charge-sheet. It is submitted that, thereafter, application for bail was filed in the Sessions Court. However, the said application was also rejected. It is submitted that from the order which is passed by this Court, it appears that this Court has passed the order on the basis of the First 2 Information Report and Medical Certificates issued by the General Hospital Solapur. 3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is a discrepancy in the FIR which was lodged on 6/9/2009 by the prosecutrix and in the supplementary statement which was recorded on 7/9/2009. He submitted that in the FIR, the prosecutrix has stated that three unidentified persons came and assaulted her husband and raped her in the house after taking away jewelery and cash which was kept in the house. He submitted that, however, in the supplementary statement, she has named the accused. He submitted that, therefore, there was clear improvement in her statement and the applicant, therefore, was falsely implicated by the prosecutrix. He submitted that the applicant has his agricultural land adjacent to the land of the prosecutrix’s husband and on account of previous enmity, his name has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that there is also a discrepancy in the second and first statement regarding place at which the offence of rape was committed. He pointed out that in the FIR, she has stated that the offence had taken place inside the room whereas, in the supplementary statement, she has stated that she was dragged out of the house and that the accused committed rape at three different places. He also pointed out that though in the first statement she has stated that the accused threw a huge stone on the door and as a result of which the door was opened, the panchanama which was 3 made and which is annexed to the charge-sheet does not disclose that any such stone was found or that the door was damaged as result of stone being thrown at the door. He further submitted that even the story of the prosecutrix that she was raped on the ground is not borne out by the Medical Certificates since there were no abrasions on her back which would have been caused had she been raped in the field. 4. In my view, the said submissions cannot be accepted. It is possible that at the time when the first statement was made, the prosecutrix was in a state of shock and, subsequently, on the very next date, she remembered the details of the said incident and, therefore, named the accused. So far as discrepancy regarding place of the offence is concerned, the said discrepancy, in my view, is not relevant at this stage. The case of the prosecution is that the accused entered the house of the prosecutrix, assaulted her husband, as a result of which he became unconscious and, thereafter, entered the house, forced her to give her ornaments and cash which was there in the house and, thereafter, all three of them forcibly raped her. 5. Taking into consideration the serious allegations which are made against the accused, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. All these submissions which are made by the learned Counsel for the applicant would be considered by the Sessions Court at the time of hearing of the criminal case. Application for bail is, therefore, rejected. 4 Trial, however, is expedited. The Sessions Court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of one year. Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court while rejecting this application for bail as the said observations are prima facie in nature and have been made while considering the application for bail. 6. Application is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)