MP 1 BA1010&1011_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1010 OF 2011 Ashok Kumar Sukhram Singh ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1011 OF 2011 Mehtab Abdul Aziz Mansoori ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Rahul Arote, Advocate for the Applicant. Smt.R.V. Newton, APP for the Respondent State in B.A.No.1010/2011. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent State in B.A.No.1011/2011. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER 2011 P. C. : The applicants seek to be released on bail in crime No.74 of 2010 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(g), 368, 343, 372, 373 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act as well as under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, was living in the tenanted premises at Haveli. Applicant Mehtab and his friend Jajuddin and some other persons from UP were living in the same locality. Mehtab had allured the girl to accompany him with the promise of marriage and also had sexual intercourse with her. Later on, he sent the girl to Dhampur MP 2 BA1010&1011_11 in U.P. along with Jajuddin. The said Jajuddin reached the girl to the house of one Sandeep Kumar Tyagi (also known as Doctor Chacha). The girl was required to live there for about three months. During that period, said Sandeep Kumar committed rape on her repeatedly and told her that he had purchased her for Rs.1 lakh. Later on, Sandeep Kumar reached the girl to the house of applicant Ashok Kumar Sukhram Singh making a show of marriage. The girl was required to live at the house of Ashok Kumar where he had also committed rape on her repeatedly. He told her that he purchased her from Sandeep Kumar for Rs.70,000/-. On the basis of the missing report, the police reached the place of Ashok Kumar and found the girl. All these facts were revealed in her statement before Police. 3. The learned Counsel for applicants contends that wife of Sandeep Kumar and Jajuddin have been granted bail. Jajuddin was a juvenile and wife of Sandeep Kumar had a minor role in the whole episode. There cannot be parity between those two accused persons and the present applicants. Applicant Mehtab appears to be the main culprit who had allured the girl with intention to sell her in U.P. and applicant Ashok Kumar had purchased her for satisfying his sexual appetite and may be with intention to dispose of the girl at later time. This is a serious offence against woman. Therefore, it is not in the interests of justice to grant bail to such accused persons. If the bail is granted, there is every possibility that the applicants, who are from U.P., may abscond and may not be available for trial. 4. Therefore, both the applications stand rejected. 5. As applicants are in custody since February 2010, the trial Court shall expedite the trial of the case and dispose of the same as early as possible, and in any case, by the end of April 2012. (J. H. BHATIA, J)