1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2010 Tanaji S/o.Balasaheb Shinde, Age-20 years, Occu-Labourer, R/o.Shiralan, Tq. And Dist. Latur APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.L.B.Syed, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 08/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.95/2009, which was registered on 04/09/2009 wherein the present applicant came to be arrested on 05/09/2009, wherein after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the present applicant and others, in which other than this applicant, other applicants were released on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation. Applicant is the prime accused 2 in this case of abduction and gang rape on the minor girl who was abducted from outside of her residential premises in the night of 30/08/2009, at abut 8.30 p.m. by the applicant and others. She was forcibly taken in one field about 1 to 1.5 kms away from her residential premises, and the present applicant committed rape on her in that night as well as on the following night also. The incident was reported by the prosecutrix to the complainant after she was allowed to go by the present applicant and his associates. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, counsel for applicant placed reliance that the other applicants were released on bail, hence on the ground of parity, he also be released on bail. 4. It is to be noted that so far as the accusation against other associates of the applicant is concerned, there is no overact on their part other than they associated, abated the present applicant to abduct the minor girl from her premises, but there are no charges of sexual ravishment against those persons who were released on bail. Further it is submitted across the bar that there is delay in lodging FIR, as the alleged incident took place in the night of 30/08/2009 at about 8.30 p.m., while the FIR about the alleged incident was registered on 04/09/2009. This contention also can not be accepted on the ground that when the alleged incident took place, prosecutrix was in the custody of present applicant and his associates and the complainant, father of the prosecutrix and other relatives were in search of the prosecutrix and came to know about the alleged 3 incident after the prosecutrix was allowed to go and contacted the father on his cell phone on the next day in the evening, from where she was collected by the complainant, and other relatives. 5. It is also contended across the bar by pointing out the report of medical examination of the prosecutrix that there are no signs of violence on the person of the prosecutrix when examined by the medical officer. It makes no difference about any signs of violence found on the person of the prosecutrix as during the course of submissions across the bar, my attention was drawn towards the statement of the prosecutrix as well as the panchnama of place of offence, which shows that before committing rape on the minor prosecutrix, one cloth was let on the ground and prosecutrix was thrown on that cloth and then raped. In such circumstances, there are no chances of marks of violence on the person of the prosecutrix. 6. Considering the way and manner in which the offence was committed by the applicant with the help of others, applicant is not entitled for any leniency. In the premise, application sans any merit, hence rejected. But considering the period for which the applicant was in custody, trial against applicant and others stands expedited. The Court of Sessions, before whom trial will appear, to dispose of the trial within the period of 6 months. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.315-10