1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 404 OF 2011 ( Amit Dnyaneshwar Patil Vs. State of Mah. PSO PS Hudkeshwar Nagpur) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri S. M. Bhangde Adv for applicant. Shri N. R. Rode APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 3rd AUGUST, 2011. . The applicant is praying for his release on bail against whom charge sheet bearing Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2011 has been filed and is pending before 1st Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(G) of Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one girl aged 17 years alleging that 4 boys acquainted to her repeatedly and at different places and at different times assaulted her sexually and there after she was left near her house. Apart from the present applicant, those involved are Pravin, Purushottam and Satish. All have been released on bail by the learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge. In an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ground of parity was raised which did not weigh with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is not understood as to why the ground of parity was not entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the bail application. This is apart from the fact that the perusal of entire F. I. R. may reflect that it was a consensual act. There is no need to dwell in detail into the averments made in the F. I. R. and suffice it to say that it sense like a consensual act since the prosecutrix moved with the boys from one place to another. In this view of the matter the learned Sessions Judge was justified in releasing the other three co-accused on bail. However, it is not understood as to why the same yardstick was not applied to the present applicant, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case. I thus find merit in this application and accordingly it is allowed. Applicant-accused be released on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur. JUDGE svk 3 From the date of taking charge i.e. from 17.03.2011 till 06.05.2011 His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice M.N. Gilani was sitting at High Court Bombay.