JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J. :---This is an application by the protector of law - a Police Head Constable, seeking anticipatory bail, as he has been charged for the offence of rape and that too on a Adiwasi Korku Woman. 2. Admittedly, the applicant, the Police Head Constable, was attached to the Police Station, Chikhaldara. 3. Police Outpost, Katkumbh is within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Chikhaldara. At the relevant time, Constable Thakur was posted at the Police Outpost, Katkumbh. On or about 16th August, 1991, Shalikram, the nephew of Tanu Darshimbe, reported the matter to the Police Outpost, Katkumbh that his uncle Tanu extended threats to him and, therefore, P.C. Thakur along with reporter Shalikram, went to the village Turanwadi which is hardly 3 kms. P.C. Thakur was highly intoxicated. He enquired about Tanu. Only inmates then present in the house was Smt. Munnibai, the wife of Sukhdeo, i.e. the daughter-in-law of Tanu Darshimbe. Instead of this, P.C. Thakur entered in the house of Smt. Munnibai and pressed her breast and tried to out-rage her modesty. She raised hue and cry. Her mother-in-law and other women-folk of the neighbourhood entered in the house of Smt. Munnibai and over-powered P.C. Thakur. Woman-folk tried to tie P.C. Thakur with dupatta, but they found the task impossible and, therefore, they too raised hue and cry. Consequently, the male members also assembled. They all tied P.C. Thakur by rope. He was in that position for about 4 to 5 hours. 4. Tanu, the father-in-law of Smt. Munnibai, rushed to village Jarinda - the Forest Outpost where the facility of a wireless is available. It being a night time, the Forest Official declined to send any message to Chikhaldara Police. Therefore, Tanu haulted there overnight and on the next morning again he requested the Forest Official to convey his report by wireless to the Police Station, Chikhaldara. According to the statement of Tanu, the Forest Officials demanded some amount from him. As he was not in a position to give any amount to them, they did not send wireless message to the Police Station, Chikhaldara. Consequently, he returned back to his village. Shalikram - the nephew of Tanu, after seeing P.C. Thakur tied by the villagers, he went to the Outpost, Katkumbh and from there, the matter was reported to Police Station, Chikhaldara. Consequently, he returned back to his village. Shalikram - the nephew of Tanu, after seeing P.C. Thakur tied by the villagers, he went to the Outpost, Katkumbh and from there, the matter was reported to Police Station, Chikhaldara. On getting information, the Police party headed by P.S.I. Patil, the applicant-Police Head Constable, along with other Police Constables, went to village Turanwadi. Before proceeding to the village Turanwadi, the Police registered the offence against Tanu and others for the offences committed under section 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. At Turanwadi, the Police party only took Smt. Munnibai along with them in a jeep. Neither her husband nor her father-in-law were arrested. However, according to Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant, Smt. Munnibai and her husband Sukhdeo both were arrested, but while going to Katkumbh, Sukhdeo slipped from the jeep and, therefore, Smt. Munnibai alone was brought to the Police Outpost, Katkumbh, during the night hours of 18-8-1991. 6. On the night of 18-8-1991, it is alleged by Smt. Munnibai that she was ravished by P.C. Thakur and two others. According to her, immediately, in the next morning i.e. on 19-8-1991, on arrival of her husband, Shri Sukhdeo, she disclosed this fact as well as to one Turrebajkhan, who used to be in the Police Outpost to prepare the food for the police personnels. Instead of producing the lady before the Magistrate at Achalpur on 19th, they took the lady to Police Station, Chikhaldara and on 20th August, 1991, they produced her before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, along with her husband Sukhdeo. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, released both husband and wife on bail. 7. On 22-8-1991, again the Police party including the applicant, had been to the village Turanwadi and arrested Tanu and his wife for the offences punishable under section 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for another offence which has been registered on the report of Shalikram - the nephew of Tanu, punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal Code. Both were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, on 23rd and on that day only, they were released on bail. 8. Both were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, on 23rd and on that day only, they were released on bail. 8. According to the applicant as well as the prosecution, Smt. Munnibai went to the S.P., Amravati and reported the matter against P.C. Thakur for molesting her modesty on 18th August, 1991 in her house at village Turanwadi and the matter of rape which was committed on her on the night of 18th August, 1991, by P.C. Thakur and two others in the police out-post, S.P., Amravati, directed the lady to bring her report in writing. Consequently, the report was scribed and presented before S.P., Amravati, on 30th August, 1991. S.P. directed Dy. S.P. to investigate into the matter. According to the applicant, since 29th August, 1991, apprehending arrest by the District Police of Amravati, he approached this Court directly for anticipatory bail. 9. Shri Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant, vehemently argued that in the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Munnibai, she has not given the name of the applicant/accused, the person who ravished her. Though she was produced before the learned J.M.F.C., Achalpur, and when a specific question was asked to her about the illtreatment during the period she was in the Police custody, she had not disclosed any incident. From 18th to 29th August, she has not reported the matter either to the Police or anyone else. The entire story is a concoction of a fertile brain of the reporter of `Lokmat' and a leader of a political party to get them the publicity and credit for digging such incident. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant, in the report the lady has specifically stated that she was ravished at the Police Outpost, Katkumbh during the night of 18th August, 1991 by P.C. Thakur and two policemen. The applicant is a Police Head Constable and as she has not named him, there is no reason for his arrest. Similarly, it is submitted that P.S.I. Shri Patil, who was incharge of the party, was all the while along with the applicant and other constables. It is not only improbable but impossible to commit such a heinous offence and that too in the Police Outpost, atleast by three Police Officers. Similarly, it is submitted that P.S.I. Shri Patil, who was incharge of the party, was all the while along with the applicant and other constables. It is not only improbable but impossible to commit such a heinous offence and that too in the Police Outpost, atleast by three Police Officers. Lastly, it is submitted that practically the investigation is over and there is no need of his arrest and, therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail. Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant, also confronted with the averments made in para 9 of the reply to the effect that "it is, therefore, not a fit case where accused should be released on bail least it may give impression to the public in general that the Police Officers receive privilage treatment." 10. On the contrary, Shri Mardikar, the learned Special Counsel for the State, oppossed the bail application on various grounds. According to Mr. Mardikar, the learned Special Counsel for the State, the reason for not immediately coming before the Police Officer are many-fold. One of such reasons is that on the day when Smt. Munnibai and her husband Sukhdeo were released by J.M.F.C., Achalpur, they had no penny with them even for return journey and for taking food. Consequently, there being no other alternative, they pledged their "Ghongadi' at Achalpur and secured Rs. 30/- and, therefore, they could take some eatibles and thereafter could take their return journey. Secondly, on 22-8-1991, the Police party again had been to the village Turanwadi and took Tanu-the father-in-law of Munnibai and Tanu's wife into the custody. Both the elderly persons were produced before J.M.F.C., Achalpur on 23-8-1991 and were released on bail. There is no doubt that Achalpur and Turanwadi is at a considerable distance of more than 100 to 150 Kms. Thirdly, Smt. Manuubai being a Adiwasi Korku lady living in the remote place in dence forest, they being rustic and not conversant with the legal problems, they had to consult their kith and kins as well as still custom is prevalent in them to have panchayat to get the decision, she could not report the matter earlier. Thirdly, Smt. Manuubai being a Adiwasi Korku lady living in the remote place in dence forest, they being rustic and not conversant with the legal problems, they had to consult their kith and kins as well as still custom is prevalent in them to have panchayat to get the decision, she could not report the matter earlier. As the honour, not only of the lady, but of the family being at stake, it was not possible for the lady or her husband immediately to rush to the Police Station to report the matter about out-raging her modesty at her house in the village Turanwadi and subsequently rape on her in the Police Outpost at Katkumbh. As the Police attached to the Police Station, Chikhaldara, committed such atrocities of molesting the modesty of woman in her own house, and subsequently removed her to the Police Out-post and committed rape on her, produced her before the J.M.F.C., Achalpur for the offence registered under section 353 I.P.C. Police not being satisfied by the aforesaid atrocities, they could lay their hands on Tanu and his wife and arrested both of them and produced them before J.M.F.C., Achalpur. If such are the atrocities committed by the Police attached to the Police Station, Chikhaldara, how the victim and her relations could dare to approach again the Police Station to lodge the report against the staff attached to the same Police Station. The victim Munnibai and other members of her family, being illiterate Adiwasi Korku, press reporter and political activist took interest and encouraged them to ventilate their grievance, reporting the matter to S.P. Amravati. In fact, they have done a pious duty which is expected from a honest citizen. Therefore, according to Mr. Mardikar, inspite of condemning them, they must have the words of praise. 11. Smt. Munnibai, in the top of the report, which she has presented before S.P., Amravati, has particularised that she was ravished on 18-9-1991 in the Outpost at Katkumbh, by P.C. Thakur and two others. The woman being a Adiwasi Korku, illiterate, living in the dense forest, it is not expected from such women that she will give the names and designations of the persons who ravished her. She could name the person P.C. Thakur only because he had been to her village, entered in her house and molested her. The woman being a Adiwasi Korku, illiterate, living in the dense forest, it is not expected from such women that she will give the names and designations of the persons who ravished her. She could name the person P.C. Thakur only because he had been to her village, entered in her house and molested her. He was apprehended and tied by the villagers and , therefore, she could remember his name as 'P.C. Thakur'. In respect of others, she was not knowing them by name and, therefore, she only stated in the F.I.R. that she was ravished by P.C. Thakur and two others. Therefore, under the circumstances, without identification, the identity cannot be fixed about the persons who committed rape on the prosecutrix. 12. Mr. Mardikar, the learned Special P.P., relied on a case of (Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 366, wherein Their Lordships observed as follows: "that section 438 of the Code is an extraordinary remedy and should be resorted to only in special cases." In a case of (Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others)2, A.I.R 1985 Supreme Court 969, wherein Their Lordships observed as under : "Ordinarily, Supreme Court is loath to interfere with the orders granting or refusing bail but it cannot be an insurmountable obstacle in the way of rectifying an order which tends to disclose miscarriage of justice. Relevant considerations governing the Court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher Court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by section 46(1) or confinement. When a person is accused of an offence of murder by the use of a fire arm, the Court has to be careful and circumspect in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. A direction under section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by section 46(1) or confinement. When a person is accused of an offence of murder by the use of a fire arm, the Court has to be careful and circumspect in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. Status in life, affluence or otherwise, are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the Court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of discretionary nature. When the power under section 438 Cr. P.C. was exercised sub silentio as to reasons or on considerations irrelevant or not germane to the determination, the Supreme Court, to avoid miscarriage of justice, must interfere". It is argued by Shri. Mardikar, the learned Special Counsel for the State, that in case the applicant/accused is released on bail, the possibility of exercising the influence and thereby tampering with the prosecution witnesses, cannot be ruled out and to substantiate it, he relied upon the case of (Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others)3, 1980 Cri. Law Journal 426. In para 4, Their Lordships observed as under : "Grant of bail is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge but the Court must not, in grave cases, gullibly dismiss the possibility of police-accused intimidating the witnesses with cavalier case. In our country, intimidation by policemen, when they are themselves accused of offences, is not an unknown phenomenon and the judicial process will carry credibility with the community only if it views impartially and with commonsense the pros and cons, undeterred by the pyschic pressure of police presence as indictees." 13. It is contended by Shri Mardikar, the learned Special Counsel for the State, that in a case under section 353 read with 34, besides Smt. Munnibai, her husband, father-in-law Tanu, mother-in-law and others are made accused. But on 18th, only Smt. Munnibai was taken with them to the Police Outpost, Katkumbh and during the night she was ravished. She being the woman, the prudence requires that either she would have been kept in her own house under surveillance otherwise she would have been removed to any other place of safety than keeping her in the Police Outpost. She being the woman, the prudence requires that either she would have been kept in her own house under surveillance otherwise she would have been removed to any other place of safety than keeping her in the Police Outpost. In a case of (Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra)4, 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 353 , Their Lordships have observed what sort of protection be given to the women prisoners in the police lock-ups which are reproduced as under : "(i) We would direct that four or five police lock-ups should be selected in reasonably good localities where only female suspects should be kept and they should be guarded by female constables. Female suspects should not be kept in a police lock-up in which male suspects are detained. The State of Maharashtra has intimated to us that there are already three cells where female suspects are kept and are guarded by female constables and has assured the Court that two more cells with similar arrangements will be provided exclusively for female suspects. (ii) We would further direct that interrogation of females should be carried out only in the presence of female police officers/constables. (iii) Whenever a person is arrested by the police without warrant, he must be immediately informed of the grounds of his arrest and in case of every arrest it must immediately be made known to the arrested person that he is entitled to apply for bail. The Maharashtra State, Board of Legal Aid and Advice will forthwith get a pamphlet prepared setting out the legal rights of an arrested person and the State of Maharashtra will bring out sufficient number of printed copies of the pamphlet in Marathi which is the language of the people in the State of Maharashtra as also in Hindi and English and printed copies of the pamphlet in all the three languages shall be affixed in each cell in every police lock-up and shall be read out to the arrested person in any of the three languages which he understands as soon as he is brought to the police station. (iv) We would also direct that whenever a person is arrested by the police and taken to the police lock-up, the police will immediately give intimation of the fact of such arrest to the nearest Legal Aid Committee and such Legal Aid Committee will take immediate steps for the purpose of providing legal assistance to the arrested person at State cost provided he is willing to accept such legal assistance. The State Government will provide necessary funds to the concerned Legal Aid Committee for carrying out this direction. (v) We would direct that in the city of Bombay, a City Sessions Judge, to be nominated by the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, preferably a lady Judge, if there is one, shall make surprise visits to police lock-ups in the city periodically with a view to providing the arrested persons an opportunity to air their grievances and ascertaining what are the conditions in the police lock-ups and whether the requisite facilities are being provided and the provisions of law are being observed and the directions given by us are being carried out. If it is found as a result of inspection that there are any lapses on the part of the police authorities, the City Sessions Judge shall bring them to the notice of the Commissioner of Police and if necessary to the notice of the Home Department and if even this approach fails, the City Sessions Judge may draw the attention of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Maharashtra to such lapses. This direction in regard to police lock-ups at the districts headquarters shall be carried out by the Sessions Judge of the district concerned. (vi) We would direct that as soon as a person is arrested, the police must immediately obtain from him the name of any relative or friend whom he would like to be informed about his arrest and the police should get in touch with such relative or friend and inform him about the arrest; and lastly (vii) We would direct that the Magistrate before whom an arrested person is produced shall enquire from the arrested person whether he has any complaint of torture or maltreatment in police custody and inform him that he has right under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be medically examined. We are aware that section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 undoubtedly provides for examination of an arrested person by a medical practitioner at the request of the arrested person and it is a right conferred on the arrested person. But, very often the arrested person is not aware of this right and on account of his ignorance, he is unable to exercise this right even though he may have been tortured or maltreated by the police in police lock-up. It is for this reason that we are giving a specific direction requiring the Magistrate to inform the arrested person about this right of medical examination in case he has any complaint of torture or maltreatment in police custody." 14. In a case of (The State (Through Deputy Commr. of Police Special Branch, Delhi) v. Jaspal Singh Gill)5, A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1503, wherein His Lordship has considered the circumstances for granting bail in non-bailable offences, under section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and observed as under : "The Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other consideration." 15. In the instant case, the investigation is in progress. The allegations against the applicant/accused being serious one, the Courts of Law are not supposed to interfere with the investigation when there are allegations made of antisocial activities. This aspect has been dealt in a case of (Surja Ram v. The State of Rajasthan)6, 1978 Cri.L.J. NOC 144 (Raj.). The Lordship observed as follows : "Exposing and possibility of finding sufficient evidence to get punished those who had held an authoritative position in society or at any other place may appear as a political vendetta at the first sight, but on a second thought its usefulness cannot be ignored. It impresses the public at large that violation of laws and depriving of the poor people of their right is not a paying project. It impresses the public at large that violation of laws and depriving of the poor people of their right is not a paying project. Let courts not show undue compliance, obstruct and hamper the search for truth by interfering in investigation at every stage. Anti-social adventures cannot claim for their nefarious activities larger regard than for the defence of the society itself, of which they form integral part. In proper cases application for anticipatory bail must be rejected." 16. It is no doubt, apparently, there is a delay in lodging the report with S.P., Amravati, but why the poor Adiwasi Korku lady not came forward and reported the matter, has been explained by Shri Mardikar, the learned Special Counsel for the State and his submissions discussed in the preceding paras. However, it is a settled principle, in cases of Indian women, that no lady will falsely involve any one when her reputation or chastity is at stake. This aspect has already been considered by the Apex Court of India in two cases, firstly, in a case of (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)7, (1983)3 S.C.R. 280 and in a case of (State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand)8, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 658. 17. Mountain has been made out of mole hill by the learned Counsel of the applicant that the medical report is negative. Admitted fact is that Smt. Munnibai was ravished during the night of 18th and 19th of August, 1991. She reported the matter orally to S.P., Amravati on 29th and submitted a written report on 30th August, 1991. Thus, there is a considerable gap of 10 days. She being the married woman and being in the exclusive custody of the Police Officials, she was not in a position to resist. Under the circumstances, one cannot expect any injury or signs of rape after such a long gap. Therefore, there is no force in this submission. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is a serious case levelling allegations against the protector of law and the reputation of the woman being involved in such serious offence, investigation being in progress, the applicant./accused does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. Thus, the bail application is rejected. Application rejected. *****