1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1708 OF 2010 (Deepak Gopichand Sundewal .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 26TH NOVEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 376(G), 377, 323 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 47/2010 registered with the Police Station, Akot, District Akola. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is seeking bail on merits of the matter as well as on the ground of parity. He further submits that the applicant is falsely involved in the said crime. The applicant is a labourer. Learned Counsel for the applicant invites my attention to the ordert, dated 13th September, 2010 passed by this Court in the case of other accused in Criminal Application No. 1318 of 2010. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application by filing the reply. I have perused the papers of investigation produced before me. The victim-prosecutrix was on way along with her son and two persons came near her and accosted the prosecutrix. It is stated in the reply that the applicant had dragged prosecutrix below the tree near Nala and exploited the victim-prosecutrix sexually. It is further stated that the other accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The material collected by the investigating shows that the statements came to be recorded by the investigating agency including the statement of the son of the prosecutrix, who has specifically stated that his mother was dragged forcefully and he 2 has given further details in his statement. The material collected from the spot are the pieces of broken bangles, under garment of victim-prosecutrix etc. In view of the strong material, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Insofar as the release of the other applicant and the parity claimed by the learned Counsel for the applicant are concerned, the nature of the allegations against the applicant is totally different. In view of the material collected by the investigating agency, I am of the opinion that there is strong material against the applicant to connect the applicant with the crime in question. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.