..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1795 OF 2008 Laxmi Bhimrao Panthap. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Adv. a/w. Miss.Vishranti Navale, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 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-274 of 2007 of Bhiwandi Sahar police station. The said case is under Sections 366A, 372, 373 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act. 3. The statement of the complainant shows that the applicant has forced a minor girl to indulge in prostitution. The statement of the victim girl has also been recorded. The girl has stated that ..(2).. she is 15 years of age. She has further stated that the applicant purchased her for Rs.20,000/- and thereafter the applicant forced her to indulge in prostitution. Mr.Mundargi drew my attention to the report of the radiologist which shows that the age of the girl was more than 18 years. In the present case, the complainant as well as the victim girl have specifically stated that her age is 15 years. As far as the report of radiologist is concerned, the radiologist’s report can never give the exact age of a person. The material on record clearly shows that the applicant has forced a minor girl into prostitution. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)