( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3246 OF 2010 Deepak Karamsingh Malke & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. K.B. Dantal and Mr. A.M. Nagarkar, advocates for the applicants. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicants are arrested in connection with Crime No. I-101/2004, registered at MIDC CIDCO Police Station, for offences punishable under section 362, 366 read with section ( 2 ) 34 of the I.P. Code. 3. The F.I.R. was lodged by mother of the prosecutrix. It was alleged that for about one (1) week, the prosecutrix had worked in a private company in which she was allegedly employed by the applicant No.1 - Deepak. The FIR purports to show that the prosecutrix is simpleton. The complainant named both the applicants in the FIR and the persons who might have taken away the prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix prima facie indicates that she had been forcibly taken away by the applicants and their relatives. It appears that she was taken to Mumbai and thereafter, was sent to Calcutta for the purpose of prostitution. She was exploited in a brothel at Calcutta. Considering the prima facie case available against the applicants, it appears that they are involved in a serious case of abduction and taking away of the prosecutrix with ill- intention to make her available for prostitution. The other accused are absconding. 4. No substantial case appears to have been made out by the applicants to say that they have been falsely implicated. The application is, therefore, rejected. The Sessions Court shall, however, expedite the trial of the matter. ( 3 ) 5. The observations made hereinabove be not considered while deciding the case on merits. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3246-10