ANKUSH RAMU BHOIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also perused the orders of the learned Sessions Judge. One order was passed before filing of the charge sheet and the other is after filing of the charge sheet.

(2.) THE basic issue as to whether the Prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse or not is required to be considered and the medical evidence on record (copy produced for my perusal by the Advocate for the Applicant alongwith charge sheet) does not show anything in that respect and the Doctor has not given opinion either way, i.e. to say whether the Prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse or not at any time. Taking into consideration that she is aged about 14 years, even though the report is lodged after 18 hours, the examination of private parts of the prosecutrix would indicate whether she had been subjected to sexual intercourse at any time. On this material aspect there is no evidence on record and therefore, merely because the Applicant had some injuries on his person, it was not proper for the learned Sessions Judge to reject the bail application of the Applicant especially when all the papers were available to him. Moreover, even the medical examination of the Applicant does not disclose whether he had committed the sexual intercourse in the immediate past.

(3.) THE Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his further security in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.