JUDGMENT - J.G. CHITRE, J.:---Out of these applications two are for bail in view of the provisions of section 438 of Cri.P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code” for convenience), filed by accused No. 2 Prithiviraj Chavan and accused No. 3 Mrudula Vanarase. These two applications are being decided with applications bearing Nos. 2067 of 2001, 2068 of 2001, 2069, of 2001, 2070 of 2001, 2071 of 2001, 2072 of 2001, 2073 of 2001, 2074 of 2001, 2454 of 2001, 2455 of 2001, 2456 of 2001, 2457 of 2001, 2458 of 2001 and 2978 of 2001 which are for cancellation of bail. 2. For understanding the matters in better way, the prosecution case in brief can be mentioned hereunder. Prosecution alleged that accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale have been working together in league for their object of catching girls who are tempted to go to cine world and using them for immoral traffic in women, by giving them allurements, inducement and temptation of earning handsome money, gaining the fame, property and publicity by acting in tele-films and movie films. Accused Prithviraj Chavan posed himself to be a Producer, Director of tele-films and movie films. Accused Mrudula Vanarase posed herself to be an associate of Prithviraj Chavan in that context. Prosecution alleged that Sanjivani Bhosale was in league and hands-in-gloves with them. According to the prosecution case, they contacted following girls and women for the purpose of their design to have the activities as mentioned above. Those girls and women are:- 1. Dipali Mane 2. Poonam Jadhav 3. Vaishali Kadam 4. Sunita Chavan, 5. Vandana Mane 6. Dipali Yawale 7. Savikha Bothalchi 3. The areas of their activities were Satara, Karad, Vai, Koregaon, Panchgani and Mahabaleshwar. Out of these girls, some girls happen to be un-married and some happen to be married. Deepali Mane who happens to be a Nurse, set in motion the ball of investigation and during the course of investigation, as per prosecution case the alleged activities of the various accused surfaced. 4. Out of these girls, some girls happen to be un-married and some happen to be married. Deepali Mane who happens to be a Nurse, set in motion the ball of investigation and during the course of investigation, as per prosecution case the alleged activities of the various accused surfaced. 4. Prosecution alleged that the incidents which took place on various dates, at various places were connected with each other in such a way that they formed a common thread of continuation of the acts committed in implementing the object of the conspiracy of indulging in immoral trafficking of women for the benefits of accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarse, Sanjeevani Bhosale on one hand and other accused on other hand who were to get their lust satisfied for consideration or otherwise. As per prosecution case, Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarse. Sanjeevani Bhosale earned money by firstly inducing them and thereafter threatening them and forcing them to sexual intercourse against their consent. 5. Out of the accused, accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase and Sanjeevani Bhosale gave the allurements to eight victims whose names have been mentioned above by promising them that they would be given some role for acting in tele-films or in movies. One victim named Dipali Mane was taken to one hotel where one accused named Ranjit Singh was introduced to her who against her will and without her consent undressed her and committed rape on her. As per the prosecution case, when the said victim protested against such behaviour of said Ranjit Singh, accused Prithviraj Chavan and Mrudula Vanarase told her that a video shooting of the sexual intercourse committed by Ranjit Singh with her has been recorded and that would be published in public and in that event her reputation would be ruined. They also threatened her that her photographs were already snapped, which were taken in semi nude dress, would be also circulated amongst the members of the public and that would seriously damage her reputation and would lower down her status in the society. Same sort of threats were given to other victims named Poonam Jadhav, Vaishali Kadam, Sunita Chavan, Vandana Mane, Dipali Yawale and Savikha Bothalchi. By giving them the threats and by introducing other accused to them as financers, those victims were exposed by them to sexual intercourse by other co-accused with them without their consent and against their will. Same sort of threats were given to other victims named Poonam Jadhav, Vaishali Kadam, Sunita Chavan, Vandana Mane, Dipali Yawale and Savikha Bothalchi. By giving them the threats and by introducing other accused to them as financers, those victims were exposed by them to sexual intercourse by other co-accused with them without their consent and against their will. All these things continued till a complaint was lodged by Dipali Mane who could collect daring to do so after lapse of days and after she had left the precincts of Satara for the purposes of getting away from the clutches of these accused. 6. After Dipali Mane lodged the F.I.R., the investigation started and the parts played by accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale on one side and other co-accused on other side came to the notice of the investigating agency. The investigating agency collected the evidence in respect of each incident and those incidents have been now threaded in such a common thread of the incidents which form, as per the prosecution case, a conspiracy to engage in such activities which happen to be crimes. The prosecution alleged that Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale were the friends acting with common intention for hatching up this conspiracy and executing it by implementation at various places as per the convenience, for benefits of Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale and other co-accused. (Mainly for satisfying their lust). 7. Even other co-accused, as the prosecution case indicates from the material which has been collected by the investigating agency, were acting as if they were simply customers for their flesh trade. Their cases will have to be separated from the cases of other co-accused who posed themselves to be in league with Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale posing that they were financers for the shooting of the tele-films or the movies. Even they sometime posed themselves to be the manufacturers of the video cassettes. One out of them has committed the sexual intercourse against the will of the victim and without her consent by showing her the obscene video cassette. Even they sometime posed themselves to be the manufacturers of the video cassettes. One out of them has committed the sexual intercourse against the will of the victim and without her consent by showing her the obscene video cassette. Their cases will have to be considered in a different angle for the purposes of considering the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the accused who seek bail i.e. Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale and the accused who have made the submissions before this Court as respondents for the purpose of opposing the prayer for cancellation of bail made by the prosecution. 8. Mr. Warunjikar, Counsel appearing for Prithviraj Chavan and Mrudula Vanarase submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that these two witnesses told the victims that they would be circulating the photographs of the victims in which they were snapped in very insufficient dresses cannot be called to be a threat given to those victims for the purposes of making them to perform the acts as per desire and wish of Prithviraj Chavan and Mrudula Vanarase. Mr. Warunjikar submitted that when the victims accepted the offer of performing different roles in tele-films and movies and for that purpose gave photo sessions, it will have to be presumed that they understood that their photographs were to be shown to other members of the public for the purposes of canvassing their cases for the purpose of obtaining appropriate roles in tele-films or movies. He submitted that when they were prepared to go for such photo sessions they were presumed to be ready and willing to get themselves so snapped photographically and they were prepared for eventualities that their photographs would be shown to the members of public. He submitted that if that was the attitude of those women, it would be very difficult to believe that by such threats, they were forced to act as per desire and wishes of accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale. He submitted that they would not allow themselves to be so used for flesh trade, as out has been indicated by the prosecution unless they were willing for that. He submitted that it was the matter of consent and, therefore, those women were acting in such fashion. Mr. Warunjikar pointed out that those women were accompanying these three accused to various places by catching buses, rickshaws and other vehicles like jeeps and cars. He submitted that it was the matter of consent and, therefore, those women were acting in such fashion. Mr. Warunjikar pointed out that those women were accompanying these three accused to various places by catching buses, rickshaws and other vehicles like jeeps and cars. He submitted that nowhere they attempted to run away or attempted to make any complaint to the members of the public or to persons in authority for the purposes of protecting themselves. He submitted that no offence has been spelt out by that material which has been collected by the investigating agency against these accused. He submitted that in view of all these things, Prithviraj Chavan and Mrudula Vanarase deserve to be bailed out as other accused have been bailed out by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, by granting directions in nature of anticipatory bail. 9. Mr. Mundargi, Mr. Mohite and Mr. Venegaonkar also argued in the same way but their purpose was to oppose the prayer made by the prosecution for the purposes of cancellation of their bail. All these Advocates submitted that firstly there was no connection between incidents which took places at various places and secondly those women (alleged victims) were acting as per their will and with their respective consents. They submitted that it was a matter of agreement for submitting for sexual inter course by those victims. They pointed out that the conduct of the victims in context with the incidents alleged, by itself showed that they were not under compulsion or threats at all. 10. Sarvashi Mundargi, Mohite, Warunjikar and Venegaonkar submitted that the Supreme Court has indicated that while dealing with the prayer made by the prosecution for cancellation of bail, the Court has to be slow in dislodging the facility of bail which has been granted to the accused and in that context the Court has to consider whether the accused, if permitted to be on bail, would tamper with the prosecution evidence and would create obstacle in the smooth progress of the trial. They submitted that the availability of the accused for trial would also be an important factor for consideration. They submitted that all these accused who have been released on bail are having roots in the society and permanent abodes and, therefore, they are not likely to abscond. They submitted that the availability of the accused for trial would also be an important factor for consideration. They submitted that all these accused who have been released on bail are having roots in the society and permanent abodes and, therefore, they are not likely to abscond. They further submitted that these accused are not hardened criminals and do not have criminal antecedents behind them. They made reference to the case of (Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat)1, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 372 and (Dolatram and others v. State of Haryana)2, 1995(1) Supreme Court Cases 349. 11. Mr. P. Janardanan assisted by Shahaji Shinde submitted that though the Supreme Court has observed in the way as indicated by the Counsel appearing for the respondents who are opposing the prayer for cancellation of bail, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court will have to be considered in a different context so far as this case is concerned. Mr. Janardanan submitted that the evidence which has been collected by the investigating agency in this case is so chronologically connecting various incidents with each other and is forming such a common thread, that no incident can be said to be disintegrated from another. He submitted that all the incidents are having connection with each other and they are co-related with each other. He submitted that the victims were acting under such a pressure from the main accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale which compelled them to go to various places at odd hours of the night, by any vehicle, provided or otherwise and were compelled to submit themselves to the lust of the co-accused whom they were presented by Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale. He submitted that Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, and Sanjivani Bhosale lured those victims, took their photographs and presented them under compulsion to various persons who are as co-accused, who opted for the purposes of flesh trade. He submitted that it is pertinent to note that at the first instance those Vandana Mane protested, she was told that a video cassette has been prepared in which the sexual inter course between Vandana Mane and Ranjit Singh was recorded and she was threatened that in case she was not willing to co-operate with them, the said video cassette would be made public and that would ruin her future life. Mr. Mr. Janardanan submitted that the same sort of threats were given to other victims who were married and out of them some were having children also. Mr. Janardanan pointed out that the victims were so helpless that they did not bother even for considering the odd hours of night and the distant places. Mr. Janardanan submitted that the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be considered against the prosecution case because in the present case, the circumstances were so strange that the victims could not have the courage for going to the Police Station for lodging the report. 12. Mr. Janardanan submitted that some of the accused who have been released on bail and for cancellation of their bail, the prosecution is making a prayer, have acted in such a way which shows that they were hands in gloves with the accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase and Sanjivani Bhosale. He pointed out that those accused were knowing that the victims were not willing and consenting for such sexual intercourse, but they proceeded in enforcing their lust on the victims by telling them that they had paid money to Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale and therefore they are entitled to have their lust satisfied. Mr. Janardanan submitted that some of the co-accused posed themselves to be the financers, video cassette purchasers. 13. Mr. Janardanan submitted that the way in which the co-accused had acted, shows that they are influential persons and if they are permitted to be at large, they would be creating obstacles in the trial and they would be tampering with the prosecution evidence. He submitted that their availability for trial would be an important criteria. So also what is important is that being at large of these accused would result in witnesses getting threats and obstacles in the way of prosecution for going to trial. 14. Mr. Janardanan submitted that one of the Additional Sessions Judges has without reasonable grounds criticised the behaviour of the victims and without affording them the opportunity of being defended, disreputed them by stigmatizing. He submitted that said learned Additional Sessions Judge has drawn the conclusions against them without they being examined in the Court. 14. Mr. Janardanan submitted that one of the Additional Sessions Judges has without reasonable grounds criticised the behaviour of the victims and without affording them the opportunity of being defended, disreputed them by stigmatizing. He submitted that said learned Additional Sessions Judge has drawn the conclusions against them without they being examined in the Court. He submitted that their examination-in chief is to be recorded, their cross-examination is to be recorded and before this process, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has virtually disbelieved their versions without affording them the opportunity of explaining the possible criticism. Mr. Janardanan submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has adopted a totally strange, improper and incorrect approach and therefore committed an error of granting bail to those respondents. He submitted that in the interest of justice, it is very much necessary to cancel their bail and put them to custody till the trial is over. He vehemently opposed prayer of Prithviraj and Mridula for anticipatory bail. 15. In the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (supra), the Supreme Court has held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. It is now well settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power to grant bail or cancellation of bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is imposed. The only material considerations in such situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour, by tampering with the evidence. If there is no prima facie case, there is no case of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial and he is likely to abuse the bail by tampering with the evidence. 16. In the matter of Doiat Ram and others v. State of Haryana (supra), the Supreme Court held that rejection of a bail in no-bailable cases at the initial stage and the cancellation of the bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. 16. In the matter of Doiat Ram and others v. State of Haryana (supra), the Supreme Court held that rejection of a bail in no-bailable cases at the initial stage and the cancellation of the bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. The congent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse the concession granted to the accused in any manner, the satisfaction of the Court on the basis of material placed on the record and the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in the mechanical manner without considering whether any intervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom of enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. 17. The criteria which is to be applied for grant of bail and for cancellation of the bail always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case which vary case to case, accused to accused, complaint to complaint. Therefore, at the time of considering the prayer of bail or at the time of considering the prayer for cancellation of bail, the Court has to be circumspect and has to inform itself about the process by which the investigating agency has collected the material against the accused for going to the trial. The Court has to inform itself about the seriousness of the case which has been depicted by the material which has been collected by the investigating agency against the accused. At the same time the antecedents of the accused, his influence in the society, his roots in the society, his availability for the trial, possibility of such an accused tampering with the evidence, subverting, impending the cause of the trial has to be given due importance. When it is the prayer for bail, strength of the material which has been collected by the investigating agency against such accused has to be given appropriate weightage. When it is the prayer for bail, strength of the material which has been collected by the investigating agency against such accused has to be given appropriate weightage. The material which the prosecution is having with it for going to the trial has to be also given appropriate consideration. At the same time, larger interest of the society has also to be seen and there comes the point of seriousness of the crime which has been alleged to have been committed by the accused. It will have to be seen whether witnesses would be able to speak in Court without any outside influence on them. 18. In the present case, the crime which has been alleged to have been committed by the accused is to be understood in proper perspective. The modus operandi which has been adopted by the accused for committing the crime, the way in which the crime is alleged to have been committed by the accused in this case, is having different style altogether. As alleged by the prosecution, prima facie, accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase and Sanjivani Bhosale adopted a novel idea of netting they butter-flies who were tempted of the charm of silver screen. Prima facie, these three accused utilised the tendency which is prevalent in these days amongst the youngsters to look with thirsty eyes to the silver screen. They exploited, prima facie, their desire to get the entry in the said silver and charming world which on the surface of it promises for good future and fortune. Who knows the reality of it? Few. As this case depicts, perhaps, the persons like victims of this case may get their future spoiled. There may be some successful persons but who knows of their worries and problems and uncertainty of the life. 19. These three accused, prima facie, exploited the craze amongst such aspirants for getting the entry in such so called charming world of silver screen. They promised that those victims would be given the opportunities of playing various roles in tele-films and movies. As it is seen generally in cheating case, as indicated by the probsection case, they gave some roles to play to the victims and thereafter they took their photographs and took them to number of persons on the pretext of introducing them as the financers, producers, etc. As it is seen generally in cheating case, as indicated by the probsection case, they gave some roles to play to the victims and thereafter they took their photographs and took them to number of persons on the pretext of introducing them as the financers, producers, etc. At the same time, they created the atmosphere of fear in their minds that in the event of their refusal to act as per the desire and wishes of these accused, they would be exposed to disreputation and their future life would be ruined. At the same time, they were lured of good fortune and good future in cine world. Thus, by giving the inducement on one side and severe threats on the other side, they made the victims to act as per their wishes, to go to various places and at odd hours of the night also. They made them to travel by various vehicles including cars, jeeps, buses and rickshaws from one place to other distant places. They utilised some hotels for the purposes of presenting them to the lust of some persons who have appeared as co-accused in this case. Therefore, these things which have been alleged to have been committed by the accused will have to be considered. Of course, prima facie, but seriously in larger interest of society and in view of alleged modus operandi. 20. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has instead of considering the material which has been collected by the prosecution against these persons, prima facie, has allowed himself to go for appreciation of the evidence which they are supposed to give in the trial at the time of recording of their evidence when these victims would be examined as prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge drew conclusions just like weighing the evidence which they were to give in the trial, without their examination-in-chief and cross-examination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with the bail applications of the respondents who are opposing the prayer for cancellation of bail. Virtually appreciated the evidence which they were to give in the trial. He acted in such a way as if he was writing a judgment of a criminal trial with final touch. The error which he committed is that he applied the rules of appreciation of evidence while deciding the bail applications without their being examination-in-chief and cross-examination of these victims. He acted in such a way as if he was writing a judgment of a criminal trial with final touch. The error which he committed is that he applied the rules of appreciation of evidence while deciding the bail applications without their being examination-in-chief and cross-examination of these victims. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also appreciated the circumstances which the prosecution put forth by the material which has been collected by the investigating agency in this case. Those circumstances were to be explained by prosecution by examination of necessary witnesses. The approach adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was totally wrong, perverse and that resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, though the Supreme Court has said in those cases that while considering the prayer for cancellation of bail the Court should be slow, in this case this Court is required to consider the material which has been collected by investigating agency neatly and carefully. The criteria which was available for consideration in those cases was totally different from the present case. The Supreme Court, as the judgments depict, considered the material which was brought forth by the prosecution for justifying the prayer for cancellation of bail in those cases. In Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, (supra) the accused was charted with committing a crime under section 307 I.P.C. In Dolatram's case the accused was facing the trial for dowry death offence. But in this case, the peculiar way which has been adopted by the accused while exploiting the craze of making the entry in cine world lingering in the minds of young generation more particularly the girls and ladies, to the maximum and that too in a clever way prima facie has to be considered. There has been a systematic plan hatched up by the accused Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale, prima facie. In accordance with the plan the victims were lured, they were committed and trapped to certain situations and those situations were exploited against them to their prejudice by putting a threat of their future life being ruined, at the same time the allurement was continued. As prosecution case indicates, false promises were given to them. They were introduced to other co-accused under false pretext, on false grounds. Other co-accused were introduced to them as if they were financers to tele-films and movies. Some of the accused were introduced to them as cassette manufacturers. As prosecution case indicates, false promises were given to them. They were introduced to other co-accused under false pretext, on false grounds. Other co-accused were introduced to them as if they were financers to tele-films and movies. Some of the accused were introduced to them as cassette manufacturers. By doing this, prima facie, those victims were squeezed out against their interest as if they were being used as commodities in flesh trade. They had no option and way to escape, prima facie. As material collected by the investigating agency in this case shows, Dipali Mane had left Satara vicimity and had gone to Mumbai for the purposes of getting relieved from the clutches of Prithviraj Chavan, Mrudula Vanarase, Sanjivani Bhosale. What it indicates prima facie? A dangerous spell of threat and terror and frustration, of course prima facie. 21. Instead of getting himself informed about the normal rule of considering the material which has been collected by the investigating agency against the accused for bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge started appreciating it to the prejudice of the prosecution and those victims. Those victims without getting the opportunity of offering the explanations, were disreputed, stigmatized and were declared to be liars and that too without their evidence being recorded. That has resulted in permitting these accused getting bail who are coming before this Court as respondents. How he could draw final conclusion at the time of deciding bail application. His order is thus based on wrong footing and it resulted in bail to those respondents and therefore in the interest of justice and larger interest of society, it has to be set aside. 22. Therefore, this Court will have to note at the time of considering the prayer for bail made by Prithviraj Chavan and Mrudula Vanarase and at the time of considering the prayer for cancellation of bail of other co-accused who are appearing before this Court as respondents, about the crimes for which they are charged. Nature of offence which is against the interest of the society at large has also to be considered. The way in which these accused have prevailed over the minds of the victims prima facie shows that they are influential persons. At the same time they are clever enough to utilise each and every circumstances and situation for their benefit and prejudicial to the prosecution. The way in which these accused have prevailed over the minds of the victims prima facie shows that they are influential persons. At the same time they are clever enough to utilise each and every circumstances and situation for their benefit and prejudicial to the prosecution. This Court will have to note that the prosecution has to go to trial and if these accused are permitted to be at large, they would be again creating the atmosphere of terror in the minds of the victims who have just come out of such a terror strickenness. The impact created on their minds by the past incidents should be forgotten by them before they come to the Court for giving the evidence and if these accused are permitted to be on bail the possibility of these accused exercising the upper hand which they were having on the minds of the victims cannot be overruled. When mightly animals are at large in jungle, tiny animals and creatures are sure to be frightened and fear stricken. This experience of the life cannot be forgotten and, therefore, the prayer for cancellation of bail will have to be considered in view of the submissions advanced by the prosecution as well as respondents that the respondents are the persons having fixed occupations and roots in the society. Their fixed occupations and roots in the society can be also considered at this juncture, keeping in view the possibility of obstacles being created in the way of the prosecution by them in going to trial, impediments likely to be created by them in the course of the trial, possibility of these persons tampering with prosecution evidence. Danger to the smooth course of the trial are to be considered along with the argument of roots of these accused in the society and their fixed occupations and abodes. 23. The possibility of accused remaining present for the trial does not assume much importance in this case in view of the possibility of danger to the smooth course of the trial and likelihood of these accused creating an atmosphere of terror in the minds of the victims when they are to go to the Court for giving evidence. Apart from that, the larger interest of the society has to be considered importantly in this case. Apart from that, the larger interest of the society has to be considered importantly in this case. The way in which the accused have committed alleged various activities is likely to shake the moral structure of the society. The activities alleged to have been committed by the accused are creating a serious danger to the rules of moral turpitude prevalent in the society. If the bail is continued on this ground, there is a possibility of giving a wrong message to the society at large. Therefore, larger interest of the society has also to be protected. 24. Offences against women are to be seen in proper angle in present chaunist society. Their gender weakness has to be understood properly keeping in view our Indian view, which has been kept continuing since past. Their limitations are to be understood in modern society more particularly in rural area. 25. While doing so, this Court cannot allow it to forget that the prosecution case, if considered as it is, is very much weak against some of the accused. As it has been submitted on behalf of the accused Sanjivani Bhosale there is insufficient material against her brought forth by the investigating agency for rejecting the concession of bail which she is enjoying till today. Though she has been shown to be the thread of the conspiracy, the part which she was alleged to have been played as per the prosecution case, as it is, is not at all prima facie to put her behind bars. Therefore, the prayer of the prosecution to cancel her bail will have to be rejected. Thus, Criminal Application No. 2456 of 2001 stands dismissed. The case of Rajendra Garwalia has to be considered on its own merits. The prosecution case as it depicted his complicity in the alleged crime, is prima facie very weak. As per the prosecution case his role appears to be simply a customer who was not knowing previous things and no further. The prosecution case nowhere shows that the victim pointed out to his notice that she was under threat and was compelled to present herself to his lust. Thus, Criminal Application No. 2070 of 2001 stands dismissed. 26. As per the prosecution case his role appears to be simply a customer who was not knowing previous things and no further. The prosecution case nowhere shows that the victim pointed out to his notice that she was under threat and was compelled to present herself to his lust. Thus, Criminal Application No. 2070 of 2001 stands dismissed. 26. So far as Gorakhnath Shinde is concerned, though the prosecution case indicates that he committed sexual inter course with Sunita Chavan in hotel Godhan in November, December, 2000 and on Deepali Yewale in hotel Manish on 9-3-2001, the role which has been attributed to him is not sufficient to put him in jail. The material collected by the investigating agency does not show that those two victims brought to his notice that they were acting under compulsion and under threats and they were acting against their will and their submissions to him was without their consent. Thus, Criminal Application No. 2073 of 2001 stands dismissed. 27. So far as Popat Rajmane is concerned, the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie shows that the victim Sunita Chavan was introduced to him as if he was Chinchwalkar. There is no test identification held by the prosecution in respect of Popat Rajmane. The allegations made against him is nothing but omnibus allegations, of course prima facie. Thus, Criminal Application No. 2458 of 2001 stands dismissed. 28. Prayer for cancellation of bail made by the prosecution against all other respondents is hereby allowed. The bail granted to them by Additional Sessions Judge, Satara by the said order stands cancelled by setting aside the said order as improper, incorrect and illegal. Those respondents should surrender their bail, if not, the Investigating Officers are hereby directed to arrest them forthwith. 29. The prayer for bail made by accused Prithvirarj Chavan and Mrudula Vanarase stands dismissed in view of the discussion made above. Thus Criminal Application Nos. 3101 of 2001 and Criminal Application No. 3220 of 2001 stands dismissed. 30. So far as Jitendra Patukale is concerned, the prosecution case is itself showing that he was a rickshaw driver and victim Deepali Mane did not tell him that she was presented to his lust without her consent and under compulsion. His role seems to be of a customer. 30. So far as Jitendra Patukale is concerned, the prosecution case is itself showing that he was a rickshaw driver and victim Deepali Mane did not tell him that she was presented to his lust without her consent and under compulsion. His role seems to be of a customer. It is pertinent to note that all these customers have not been charged for committing any offence punishable under the provisions of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women Act, 1956 of far. Thus, Criminal Application No. 2072 of 2001 stands dismissed. 31. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary. Order accordingly. -----