1 APPA-G-998.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.928 OF 2011 Sandeep Manohar Shinde .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Tejas Dande for the Applicant. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICAION NO.1000 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.929 OF 2011 Santosh Kisan Pathare & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Prashant M. Patil for the Applicants. Shri Rajesh More, APP, for the State in both Appeals. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 12, 2011 P.C: These are applications for bail 2 APPA-G-998.11 pending the hearing of the appeals filed by the applicants questioning their conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(1) (x) and (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentence of RI for 7 years and 5 years respectively imposed on the two counts. The applicants were on bail throughout the trial. The role of applicant Sandeep Shinde, accused No.5, is that he was running a hair cutting saloon on the road going towards the school of the prosecutrix. Whenever she passed by that saloon, he used to make lewd comments about her. The applicant Santosh Pathare was a member of the school community where the prosecutrix was taking education. He offered to help the prosecutrix by getting a bicycle or a new dress for her and expected physical favours from her, which she refused. The applicant Rushikesh @ Anu Anant Lakeshri also used to wait for the prosecutrix on her way to the school and expected physical favours from her. According to the prosecutrix, he told the prosecutrix that if she refused to have physical relations with him, he will have those relations performed through someone else. As far as his 3 APPA-G-998.11 friend Mayur Purohit is concerned, he is also stated to have been remaining present at the shop of applicant Sandeep Shinde. These are the only allegations made by the prosecutrix which the learned Judge found to be enough to convict the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC of engaging in a conspiracy to have the prosecutrix raped by accused No.1 and the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Since the applicants were on bail throughout and since the hearing of the appeals may take time, the applicants be released on each of them furnishing fresh bonds in the same sum on which they were on bail throughout the trial. The applications accordingly stand disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)