1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4492 OF 2009 1. Trimbak S/o.Kisan Kole, Age-35 years, Occu-Labourer, 2. Sharad S/o.Babarao Kole, Age-21 years, Occu-Labourer, Both R/o.Waghala, Tq.Mantha, Dist.Jalna APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Mantha Police Station, Tq.Mantha, Dist. Jalna RESPONDENT Mr.A.S.Pagare, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 08/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No.144/2009, registered in Mantha Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 452, 504, 376(2)(g) of IPC. 2 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. From the perusal of papers of investigation till carried out, it appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Chadrakala Kole about the alleged incident took place in the evening of 17/11/2009 when the complainant prosecutrix was taking rest in her house alongwith her 3 minor children, at that time 3 persons came there and on the point of knife, sexually ravished her. The complaint came to be lodged on the next day morning. The applicant herein came to be arrested in connection with the said CR on 02/12/2009 and are still in custody. 3. In this background, it is urged across the bar by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the way in which the incident is narrated, there is no possibility that the married lady, a mother of 3 children was ravished sexually by these 2 applicants in the presence of her 3 minor children. It is tried to urge that to give a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the mother of one of the applicant, this false complaint is lodged against these two applicants by the said victim. 4. While opposing this bail application, according to learned APP, the statements recorded of the minor children of the victim, and witnesses have supported the version given by the victim in the complaint. Apart from it, the investigation is still in progress and the 3 way and manner, in which the offence was committed by these applicants, it is not safe to enlarge the applicants accused on bail. 5. It is very curious to note that even though it was vehemently urged across the bar by the applicants that the complaint is lodged to give a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the mother of one of the applicant, tt is the statement across the bar that no cognizance was taken by the police about the complaint lodged by the mother of one of the applicant, but it is worth to be noted that no action is taken either by the mother of the applicant or by the applicants as no cognizance was taken by the police about the complaint lodged by their mother. In the premise, there is no meaning to the allegation that to give a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the mother of these applicants, these applicants are falsely implicated in the present offence. Apart from it, if the incident narrated by the victim is supported by her minor children, at least at this stage, we can not say that there is no probability of the incident took place as narrated by the victim. As the investigation is still in progress, it is not safe to enlarge these applicants on bail in such type of offences. Application sans any merit. Rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.4492--09