RAHUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
VIBHA KANKANWADI,J. -
(1.) Present application has been filed by applicant-accused for bail under Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) Heard learned Advocate Shri Bachate for applicant and learned APP Mr. SG Sangale for
(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the informant-girl is
cousin sister of present applicant, who is now
married. The informant-girl says that the first
act, that was committed by the applicant was, in
the month of July 2018, but she has not lodged any
report till 6.5.2020. There is no proper
explanation for the belated FIR. Further, the
contents of the FIR would show that the first act
is alleged to have been done with force. However,
thereafter several acts have been committed. But,
it appears that it was either with consent or only
statement is made that it was against her wish.
Except the FIR, there is no other supporting
evidence to her story and even the medical evidence
does not categorically say that the present
applicant had committed rape on the prosecutrix.
The friends of the informant have only stated that
sometimes the prosecutrix was not coming along with
them, but she used to disclose that she had gone
along with the applicant on his room. Therefore,
on such kind of evidence, the applicant, whose
physical custody is no longer required for the
purpose of investigation, need not be kept behind
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.