1 Appln. 3844 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3844 OF 2010 Asif Majid Motlani & Anr. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. V.N. Bolinjkar, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th September, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicants who are brothers apprehend their arrest in C.R. No. I-96/2010 filed by Azad Nagar Police Station, Nasik for the offence punishable under Sections 376(g), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Shabana, got married to one Haji Mohd. Ibrahim Motlani, aged 60 years on 29th August 2004 at Malegaon and started residing in the joint family of her husband. It is alleged in the complaint that since about a couple of weeks after marriage, both the applicants and their third brother, one Salim sexually assaulted the complainant from time to time with the consent of her husband. The complaint alleges that the husband of the complainant used to receive money from 2 Appln. 3844 of 2010 the three brothers for sexual assault on the complainant. The complaint shows that in the year 2009, the complainant after being fed up with the sexual assault on her, had attempted to commit suicide by consuming All Out a mosquito repellent “ ” and was admitted in the hospital for 3 days. There was continuous threat given to the complainant that if she does not submit to the desire of the applicants and their brothers, her husband would give talak to her. After the incident of attempt to suicide, she was sent to her parents at Pune and since then she has been residing with her parents. On 14th July 2010, the complainant s husband and applicant no.1 is alleged to have ’ visited her parents house and tried to pursuade her to return to her husband s house. They are also alleged to have taken away ’ a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the house of the parents. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is inordinate delay of 6 years in filing of the complaint and therefore, the applicants should be released on anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 6 years cannot be taken into account at this stage of grant of anticipatory bail. The complaint specifically names both the applicants by making specific allegations against them. In that 3 Appln. 3844 of 2010 circumstance, the application is rejected, as this is not a case in which this Court should have to exercise its discretionary power of granting anticipatory bail. ( Smt. R.P .SondurBaldota, J)