( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3923 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2009 Prakash Dnyandeo Gaikwad and ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri N.C. Garud, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 13.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri N.C.Garud, Advocate for the applicants and A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for respondent/State. This is an application for bail filed by accused Nos.1,2,5 & 7 from Sessions Case No. 165 of 2007, decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 01.09.2009, whereby accused No.1 is convicted of offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 366-A and 376 of the I.P.C., accused No. 2 is convicted of offence punishable under sections 366 & 366-A of the I.P.C., accused No. 5 is convicted of offence punishable under sections 342 & 366 of the I.P.C. and accused No. 7 is convicted of offence punishable under sections 342 & 366 of ( 2 ) the I.P.C. Each of the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine. 2. Briefly stated it is case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was 18 years of age. She was given in marriage to one Nanaji Chaure, but she did not live with her husband and came to reside at Manjri and started working on dairy farm, where she got introduced with accused No.1 – Prakash resident of Miri. Accused No.1 promised her that he would marry her and they started residing at Miri for 2-3 months. Thereafter, elder brother of accused No.1 by name Somnath (accused No.2) suggested that the prosecutrix be used for prostitution. Thereafter, there was dispute between accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused No.1 took the prosecutrix to Chakan and they resided there for about six months. Accused No.2-Somnath came to Chakan and he took both accused No.1 and prosecutrix to village Miri. Then prosecutrix gave birth to a child. It is further case of the prosecution that on 06.04.2007 accused No.1’s father Dnyandeo (accused No.3), mother Bhamabai (accused No.4) and brother Somath (accused No.2) snatched away the girl from the prosecutrix and expelled her from the house, but she sat at the door. ( 3 ) Thereafter, on 09.04.2007 accused No. 1 and 2 discussed and decided that since the prosecutrix is not going away from them, she be sold to someone. They took the prosecutrix forcibly to accused No. 5 - Ramesh residing at Bhenda, where the prosecutrix was confined and given threat that if she tried to run away, her daughter would be killed. On 17.04.2007 accused No.5-Ramesh and Pournima (accused No.6) took the prosecutrix to Newasa at the house of Suman sister. All of them came to Nagapur, where the prosecutrix was compelled to marry with Kishor Kale (accused No.7) against her wishes by exchange of garland. When prosecutrix protested, accused No.5 said that accused No.1 and 2 had sold her and she had to reside with accused No. 7 at Bhenda. The prosecutrix convinced one Kalabai. Kalabai took the prosecutrix to Police Station, where she lodged complaint complaining that accused No.1 enticed the prosecutrix and all the accused committed various offences as stated above. 3. It is held by the Trial Court that the prosecution evidence regarding kidnapping, confinement at Bhenda and forcible marriage is reliable. ( 4 ) 4. It is now well settled that this is not a stage where there should be detailed analysis of the evidence. The offences are of very serious nature. The Trial Court found evidence reliable and trustworthy. The Trial Court also held that age of the prosecutrix was 16 years of age in 2006. Considering gravity of the offences and various acts, this is not case where the accused/applicants should be released on bail. In the circumstances, this application is dismissed. 5. However, there are very few appeals of the prisoners pending with this Court, therefore hearing of the appeal can be expedited. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant shows willingness to provide private paper book. As soon as private paper book is prepared and supplied to the Court and the learned A.P.P., the applicants are at liberty to move for early hearing of the appeal. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3923.09