1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4379 OF 2010 Dipak Nathu Kalner & ors. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Smt. Sadhana Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants; Mr N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J DATE : 25th October, 2010 PER COURT : At the outset, Smt. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the applicants states on instructions that the present application is not being pressed in respect of applicant no.1 Dipak Nathu Kalner. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned. 2. Applicant no.2 is an accused in Crime No.239/2010 registered by the Rahuri police station, District Ahmednagar for offence punishable under sections 363-A, 366, 376 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the applicants herein had kidnapped one minor girl named Sheetal Vithal Mane and Shaila Tukaram Mane, 2 who is 18 years of age and had stayed in Suryakiran Lodge in different rooms. The present applicant is alleged to have ravished Kum. Shaila Tukaram Mane, aged 18 years in a room in Suryakiran Lodge. It appears that after the forcible intercourse Shaila Tukaram Mane had asked the present applicant i.e. Mahadu s/o Ananda Kalner to marry her and on the applicant Mahadu informing her that he was married, the whole process of levelling the allegations against the applicant Mahadu started. In such circumstances, therefore, according to me the present applicant no.2 Mahadu is entitled to be released on bail. This application stands dismissed in respect of accused no.1 Dipak Nathu Kalner as this application is not pressed for the relief as against Dipak is concerned. 3. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the applicant Mahadu Ananda Kalner is directed to be released on bail on the applicant executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The applicant shall neither attempt to tamper the prosecution evidence nor shall he influence the prosecution witnesses. It is needless to state that any observations made by me on merits of the matter shall not be construed as any findings while deciding the trial. Application allowed accordingly. ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4379.10