1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4995 OF 2011 Jairam Bansi Lokhande & another Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri.Ravindra M.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicants Shri.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent / State CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 30th November, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides. 2. The applicants apprehend arrest in Crime No.85/2011 registered with Ghansavangi Police Station, Dist. Jalna for the offences punishable under sections 364, 366(A), 120 (B), 109, 342 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The F.I.R. lodged on 08.09.2011 speaks of kidnapping of Durga, who is below 18 years, by the present applicants alongwith other persons. Statement of Shivaji goes to show that the present applicants alongwith others compelled Durga to sit in a Scorpio car 2 and she was taken. Durga's statement has been recorded by the police. Durga has in no uncertain terms stated that she was taken out of her house on a belief that she is being taken to her parents place at Tirthpuri. She has stated in her statement that from the place where she was residing, the present applicants and others travelled by Scorpio car alongwith her and the present applicants as well as Sarpanch Markad got down at Jalna. She was taken charge of at Bombay as she was taken to Ghatkopar at the residence of Dhondabai. She was further stated that Deva Nade had sexual intercourse with her on 5-6 occasions. The statement of Durga clearly indicates that she was carried much against her wishes and Deva had committed sexual intercourse which was not sanctioned by her. It is true that complainant narrates that her husband was present in the house alongwith Shivaji when Durga was taken away. The statement of Shivaji as well as Durga indicate that her father was not at home. In my view, this discrepancy is not material. 3 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants has drawn my attention to a medical certificate issued by Ghansavangi hospital which shows that applicant no.1 was admitted in the said hospital for some insect bite and on 01.09.2011 he was an indoor patient. No doubt, said certificate would be in favour of the applicant. However, as of today, I am inclined to accept the words of Durga and Shivaji as they had no reason to falsely implicate the present applicants. The certificate cannot be the basis for the purpose of discarding the words of these two material witnesses and in particular Durga, who is the victim of the occurrence. 5. The allegations against the applicants are serious. They have kidnapped a girl of tender age behind the back of parents and wanted to see that she is married to a person of their choice. In my view, this court should not exercise discretion in favour of the applicants. Hence the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 4 ORDER The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) vsm/criappln4995.11