[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2831 OF 2008 Zeenat Zuber Qureshi ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.P.M.Chakurkar advocate for applicant Mr.H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.I-25 of 2007 of Daighar Police Station, Thane. The said case is under Section 328 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. 3. The complainant is a young married lady of 18 years. She got married to one Danish who was resident of Mumbai. Some days after her marriage, the applicant approached the complainant and her husband. She requested the husband of the [-2-] complainant to allow the complainant to stay with her in her house for few days and when Danish gets a proper job, he could take the complainant with him. On her request, the complainant and her husband went to Mumbra. However, there the applicant got a room for the complainant and her husband in a lodge. The applicant told the complainant and her husband that as there was some quarrel in the house of the complainant she along with her husband started residing in the said lodge. Thereafter the husband of the applicant took the husband of the complainant out to get him a job. In the meanwhile the applicant along with some other persons brought a man in the room of the complainant. They insisted that she should have sexual intercourse with the said man. The complainant refused. In the meanwhile the husband of the applicant came back to the lodge. The complainant stated that her head was aching whereupon the husband of the applicant gave her one tablet for headache. On consuming the tablet, the complainant fell giddy and sleepy. Thereafter the applicant, her husband and others left the complainant in the room with the said person and they went away. The said person informed the [-3-] complainant that he had paid money to the complainant and others so that he could have sexual intercourse with the complainant. The said person then had sexual intercourse with the complainant. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Naseem Banu Afzal Khan has been granted bail and the role of the applicant is same as that of Naseem Banu, hence, the applicant may be granted bail on the ground of parity. On perusal of the material specially the FIR, it is seen that it was the applicant who had brought the complainant and her husband to Mumbra and made them stay in a lodge. It was the husband of the applicant who gave the tablet to the complainant due to which, she fell giddy and sleepy. The co-accused Naseem Banu had entered into the picture only after the complainant and her husband started to reside in the lodge at Mumbra. Looking to these facts, it cannot be said that the case of the applicant is similar to that of Naseem Banu. Looking to the material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application is rejected. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]