1 APPA 158-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.156 OF 2011 Rikta Rijabul Vishwas ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Vikram Chavan, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence of one Rikta Rijabul Vishwas, who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune along with one Farida Altaf Shaikh for the offence punishable under Sections 344, 363, 366A, 372, 373, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 2 APPA 158-2011 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prevention of the Immoral Traffic Act and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment ranging from six moths to five years. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that she was on bail through out the trial. He submits that her daughter is taking education and therefore, the applicant is not likely to abscond. According to him, appeal is not likely to taken up for hearing soon and hence, there is no warrant for imprisoning the applicant pending hearing of this appeal considering the fact that the evidence about complicity of the applicant is doubtful and submits that the minor girl, who was allegedly brought from Bangladesh may not have been minor, since Doctor states that there was a margin of error of three years on either side of ascertaining age and Doctor had found the victim to be 16 to 18 years old. Next he submitted that the girl was not brought in India by the present applicant but by another person handed over 3 APPA 158-2011 her to the applicant. The girl did not state specifically that she was forced into the prosecution by the applicant, though the learned APP points out that the girl did say so. The learned Counsel for the applicant points out that in cross examination the victim had specifically stated that she did not know whether the victim was put to the prostitution by the present applicant. He also pointed out that the victim did not state that the applicant was present when a person forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. Considering all this, he submits that applicant may be admitted to bail pending hearing of this Appeal. 3. The learned APP points out that the offence is very serious and the applicant is likely to indulge in the same business once admitted to bail. She also states that considering that the applicant has been convicted and suffered five years sentence, 4 APPA 158-2011 the chance of her absconding is high, since she is Bangladeshi citizen and had come to India on the false pretext of meet her relations when she has no relations in India. 4. Considering the nature of allegations made and the evidence tendered as also the fact that the applicant is Bangladeshi National, who had come to India on the false pretext, application is rejected. Appeal may be taken up for expeditious hearing. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)