1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.591 OF 2011 (SUBHASH SHRAWAN KHEDIKAR //VS// STATE OF MAH. THR. PS.O. SAKOLI, BHANDARA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.J.Sakhare, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. V.A.Thakre, A.P.P. for Respondent. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 02, 2011. Heard both sides. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the accused on bail against whom offence bearing Crime No. 31 of 2011 is registered with Police Station, Sakoli for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and lateron converted to Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The victims are two minor girls aged about 9 years. The accused is aged about 43 years, already married and having three children. On 28.02.2011 at about 12.00 noon when both the victims, studying in 3rd standard, were present in the house of one of the victims, the accused went to them. He invited them to his house and allured them by offering “Dahi-Fringer”. Both the girls acceded to his request. Thereafter the accused undressed both the girls and undressed himself and lay on them. Statements of both the girls have been recorded. One Chhayabai, who had seen the girls entering the house of the accused, after finding that the 2 girls had not come out for quite some time, she went to the house of the accused. Then she saw both the girls, who were undressed, and the accused was lying on them. Considering the medical evidence, which did not suggest commission of rape, the police applied Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that rejection of his bail application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is wrong since the offence alleged against the accused is attempt to commit rape. He further contended that the trial will consume considerably long time, accused is poor and only bread earning member in the family, hence, he may be released on bail pending trial. He relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Shiney Suraj Ahuja Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 92. It was a case involving adult female aged about 20 years. Present is a case where two minor girls studying in 3rd Standard have been molested and that too by the accused who is their neighbour. Considering the evidence collected by the prosecution and the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be desirable to release the applicant on bail. The application is rejected. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara shall make endeavours to dispose of the trial as early as possible and in any event within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. JUDGE RR..