1 ABA-342.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.342 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Shivaji Ramesh Kale & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri V.V. Purwant for the Applicant. Ms R.V. Newton, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: MAY 05, 2011 P.C: 1. In this application for anticipatory bail, by an interim order bail had been granted to all the applicants to enable the learned APP to get instructions. The learned APP has now made available for my perusal the case diary which shows that the prosecutrix had left the house of her cousin on 20-3-2011 and had been allegedly taken by the four applicants to the house of applicant Nos.1 to 3. Though a 17 year old young girl was missing from the house, the report was given only on 24-3-2011. It seems that the allegation is that the applicants wanted the prosecutrix to marry applicant No.1, 2 ABA-342.11 which was opposed by the first informant because, according to the first informant, she was 17 and therefore not of marriageable age. Applicant No.1 is alleged to have tied a mangalsutra to the prosecutrix and then on the first night itself committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, but for the next three days nothing happened. The prosecutrix also seems to have come out of the house and gone to the nearest police station when till 11:00 p.m. on that day the applicants had not returned after having left the house at 2:00 p.m.. The house where the prosecutrix was kept is not an isolated house. There are houses around, including the house of the landlord. Considering this, it is not clear why applicant Nos.2 to 4 should be taken into custody for the purpose of further investigation. The interim order dated 28-4-2011, in so far as applicant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, is confirmed. 2. Since there are allegations of rape against applicant No.1, his application is rejected. 3. This order, in so far as it relates to applicant Nos.2 to 4, shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only 3 ABA-342.11 stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 4. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)