..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2982 OF 2008 Mr.Aalim Dukhi Malik. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Sudhir Halli, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 5th September, 2008. DATED : 5th September, 2008. DATED : 5th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-247 of 2008 of Mira Road Police Station. The said case is under Sections 376, 366, 336 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecutrix is a young married lady. When the prosecutrix was facing financial difficulties at that time the applicant told her husband that he would get a job for prosecutrix at Bangalore. Hence, the prosecutrix accompanied him ..(2).. to Bangalore. At Bangalore the applicant took her to one person Fazal. Thereafter the applicant left. After the applicant left, the prosecutrix came to know that she had been sold by the applicant to Fazal for Rs.20,000/- for the purposes of prostitution. Farad threatened the prosecutrix and sent her to various persons for indulging in forcible sexual intercourse. Somehow the prosecutrix managed to escape and she came to Mumbai. The material on record clearly shows that the applicant induced the prosecutrix to accompany him knowing that she would be forced into illicit intercourse. 4. The learned APP has submitted that co-accused Prajwal has been granted bail. On perusal of the material, it is seen that the case of the applicant is not similar to that of co-accused Prajwal who has been granted bail. Looking to the material on record, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)