1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1706 OF 2008 Smt. Saina Ismail Qureshi and another ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b Mr. H.S. Anand for the Applicants. Mr. S.R. Jaiswal for the Complainant. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP of the State. ..... CORAM: V.C. DAGA, J. 6th June, 2008. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State and also the advocate appearing for the complainant. 2. The Applicants are seeking regular bail in C. R. No.263 of 2008 registered by Oshiwara Police Station for the offence under Sections 363, 363A, 374, 368, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is not in dispute that the reported act constituting an offence complained of has taken place in the month of September 2 2004, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 12th May, 2008, practically after three and half years. The boy, who was alleged to have been kidnapped was admittedly, admitted in the school, wherein he was prosecuting his education. The delay in filing the FIR has not been explained by the complainant as well as prosecution. Applicant No.1 is presently in judicial custody since past more than one month. The boy, who was allegedly kidnapped is in the custody of the Complainant. The boy was examined and interrogated by the police. He did not make any statement about the bad treatment leading to employment and/or begging though in a subsequent statement complaint in that behalf finds place. It is also true that two accused are absconding. Taking into account all these factors, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by continuing detention of Applicant No.1, who is a woman, entitled for special consideration, while considering application for grant of bail. 4. Insofar as Applicant No.2 is concerned against whom the only allegation is that, when the complainant had made enquiry 3 on 13th September, 2004 about the concerned boy, he told her that he, (the boy) has gone out and that he would return in short time. On this singular allegation appearing in the FIR, Applicant No.2 was taken into custody. The statement made, even if taken to its face value, prima facie, it would hardly constitute an act of committing offence. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to both the Applicants on the following terms and conditions : i) The Applicants, arrested in connection with C.R. No.263 of 2008 registered with Oshiwara Police Station be released on bail on executing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two local sureties in the like amount; ii) Both the Applicants shall report to the concerned Police Station every week i.e. on Saturday between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet; iii) The order of bail will be given effect only after the Applicants furnish to the Investigating Officer the details about 4 their place of residence and address where they propose to stay after they are released on bail. The Applicants will not change their residential address until conclusion of trial without prior intimation of the Investigating Officer; iv) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence; v) The Applicants shall co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal of the case. It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the Applicants shall result in cancellation of bail. vi) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the Applicants seeks 5 permission to seek bail on cash security. However, prayer made is rejected. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (V.C.DAGA, J.)