Judgment 1. Heard. 2. By this common order, I shall dispose of group of applications for bail, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with Crime No.160/2007 registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. 3. Applicants, named hereinabove, have been arrested for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 376, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Some of the applicants are Police Officers, some of them are said to be mere customers and some of them are said to be involved in the act of immoral trafficking. 4. On basis of report lodged by minor girl, viz., Puja, the offences were registered. She narrated to the Police as to how she was induced to enter into flesh trading by a brothel keeper named Shamim Tabassum @ Baji. The prosecutrix was born out of second marriage of her mother -Sunita with one Sahebrao Mhaske. Said Sahebrao Mhaske died and thereafter her mother remarried to one Vasantrao Hodgir. Her maternal aunt, by name Mahananda is unmarried. She (prosecutrix - Puja ) and her brother were residing with Mahananda in her house at Parbhani. She was unhappy because the maternal aunt – Mahananda had abused and beaten up her on some occasions. Some days prior to the incident, Puja left house of her maternal aunt and came to Aurangabad with a view to earn her livelihood. She started residing in a house at Mukundwadi. Initially, when she met accused Shamim Tabassum @ Baji, then she was offered work as maid servant. She started working as maid servant in the residential house of said Shamim Tabassum @ Baji and used to attend domestic chores. 5. According to the report of Puja, she noticed that some girls used to come to the house of accused - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji. Their activities were suspicious. After passage of some days, one of such girl did not come to the house of accused –Shamim Tabassum @ Baji. So, accused - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji asked her (prosecutrix) to go along with her. They went to a road side hotel (Dhaba), situated at Mhaismal in a car vehicle. She was offered soft drink. After seeping the soft drink, she felt reeling in her head. A person, who was present at the Dhaba took her to a room. So, accused - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji asked her (prosecutrix) to go along with her. They went to a road side hotel (Dhaba), situated at Mhaismal in a car vehicle. She was offered soft drink. After seeping the soft drink, she felt reeling in her head. A person, who was present at the Dhaba took her to a room. She was staggering due to the influence of some intoxicant, which was served through the soft drink. She was raped by that person in spite of her protest and though she was unwilling. Thereafter, she was taken back to house of accused - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji. 6. The prosecution alleged that the minor prosecutrix was thereafter deputed to go with various persons and was being paid amounts for catering sensual pleasures. Sometimes she used to be paid 50% of the amount whereas, remaining 50% used to be retained by accused - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji. At a times, said accused - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji used to keep the entire amount with her. She was taken to various places like hotels, Government guest house or private apartments and was induced to share bed with various persons. Lastly, on 21st April, 2007, accused -Mohd. Sajid Hussain and others took her to a travel agency so as to send her to Mumbai in a travel Bus. Before boarding the travel Bus, they went to a nearby hotel and consumed liquor. Accused No.1 -Mohd. Sajid Hussain and his friends started behaving indecently with her. They kissed her in the hotel and created a scene. The Police arrived at the hotel and took them all to the Police Station. Her interrogation revealed as to how she was exploited by the brothel keeper and others to indulge in flesh trade. 7. The prosecutrix was medically examined in the same evening. Her information was reduced into writing as F.I.R. Thereafter, various statements of the prosecutrix were recorded. Her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is also recorded. 8. Some of the applicants had filed applications for directions under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Those applications were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by order dated 24.5.2007. Thereafter, a Single Bench of this Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications by order dated 27.6.2007 holding inter alia that the prosecutrix was probably major and willingly consented for the flesh trading in lieu of cash consideration. 9. Thereafter, a Single Bench of this Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications by order dated 27.6.2007 holding inter alia that the prosecutrix was probably major and willingly consented for the flesh trading in lieu of cash consideration. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-State preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.1402-1409 of 2007, which came to be allowed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, some of the applicants surrendered to the Police whereas, some of them came to be arrested. 10. Before I proceed to embark upon prima facie scrutiny of the prosecution evidence available against each of the applicant, I may mention here that there are three categories of accused persons involved in connection with the crime registered by the Police. First, some of them are concerned with the flesh trading being the brothel keeper or her henchmen. Secondly, some of the applicants are Police Officers and influential politicians, who enjoyed the sex with the prosecutrix by taking her at hotel or private places and are potential enough to influence the prosecutrix and the witnesses, if liberty is granted. Thirdly, some of the applicants are gullible customers or remotely concerned with the immoral trafficking of the minor girl/s. 11. The liberty available under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is a general rule in the context of cases where, the charges are not so much so serious or complicity of the accused person/s is not prima facie borne out from the record. The principles at the bottom of discretionary relief provided under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. are enunciated by the Apex Court in (2007 CRI.L.J.2766). The Apex Court held : "12. Normally in the offence of non-bailable also, bail can be granted if the facts and circumstances so demand. We have already observed that in granting bail in non-bailable offence, the primary consideration is the gravity and the nature of the offence. A reading of the order of the learned Chief Justice shows that the nature and the gravity of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of the society was not at all considered. We are more concerned with the observations and findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice on the credibility and the evidential value of the witnesses at the stage of granting bail. We are more concerned with the observations and findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice on the credibility and the evidential value of the witnesses at the stage of granting bail. By making such observations and findings, the learned Chief Justice has virtually acquitted the accused of all the criminal charges levelled against him even before the trial. The trial is in progress and if such findings are allowed to stand it would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of the prima facie case established for granting bail. It cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial." The above observations of the Apex Court would make it manifest that while granting bail in serious offences, it is necessary to see the gravity of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of the society. At the premature stage of considering the applications for bail, it is not required to go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. 12. Mrs.S.S.Jadhav and Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, learned Advocates for the applicants in Criminal Application Nos.4303/2007, 4304/2007 and 4225 of 2007, respectively, would submit that age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years at the relevant time. They would further submit that she willingly entered the trade of selling the flesh. They would submit that prima facie the prosecutrix was not exploited by the applicants. Mr.Deshmukh M.S. seeks to rely on “Gangadhar s/o. Gonduram Tadme Vs. Trimbak s/o. Govindrao Akingire and others”, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 94 : [2005(1) ALL MR 749] in support of his contention that the birth record produced by the prosecutrix does not carry presumptive value under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The learned Advocate would point out that the prosecutrix gave her age as eighteen (18) years when she was medically examined. It is argued that no reliance could be placed on the purported birth certificate, which was issued on 29.5.2007 by the Parbhani Municipal Council and the school record of different schools, which indicate her age to be between 14 to 16 years. It is argued that no reliance could be placed on the purported birth certificate, which was issued on 29.5.2007 by the Parbhani Municipal Council and the school record of different schools, which indicate her age to be between 14 to 16 years. It is argued that the prosecutrix was above sixteen (16) years at the relevant time and hence, there was no substance in her allegation of ravishment. The learned Advocates would submit that the applicants are ready to abide by conditions, which may be put. Mrs.Jadhav would submit that applicant - Shivaji Dagadu Kamble was attached to Vigilance Cell of Caste Scrutini Committee and, therefore, could not have used white Ambassador car having a red lamp on the top of it. She would point out that the prosecutrix is said to have been carried away in the white colour Ambassador car, which was having red lamp on the top. Mr.Deshmukh would submit that applicant - Dileep Shivajirao Deshmukh (accused No.4), at the most, could be regarded as a customer and had no reason to know that the prosecutrix was minor. 13. The learned Advocates appearing for the other applicants would submit that the applicants are unconcerned with the sex racket. They would submit that the applicants have been implicated only because their names are stated in the subsequent statements of the prosecutrix. Mr.Warma urges that the applicant - Yusufkhan Akhtarkhan in Criminal Application No.4126 of 2007 may be granted temporary bail for fifteen (15) days so as to provide medical help to his wife. Mr.Dhorde would further submit that applicant – Mirza Najiulla Baig s/o Mirza Rizwan Baig, who has filed Criminal Application No.4040 of 2007 has absolutely no concern with the flesh trading. He was driver working with accused No.5. He, in fact, attempted to dissuade the accused No.5 from immoral sexual relations but it was of no avail. Therefore, Mr.Dhorde urged for grant of bail to applicant - Mirza Najiulla Baig. He would also submit that applicant - Shaikh Jaffar s/o Shaikh Ahmed, who has filed Criminal Application No.4039 of 2007, has no role to play and was only a customer without having knowledge regarding minority of the prosecutrix. Similarly is the argument advanced on behalf of other applicants. Mr.Umakant Patil, learned A.P.P., however, strongly opposed the applications. He would also submit that applicant - Shaikh Jaffar s/o Shaikh Ahmed, who has filed Criminal Application No.4039 of 2007, has no role to play and was only a customer without having knowledge regarding minority of the prosecutrix. Similarly is the argument advanced on behalf of other applicants. Mr.Umakant Patil, learned A.P.P., however, strongly opposed the applications. He would point out that prima facie, the prosecutrix is minor and is likely to be influenced by the applicants, if they are released on bail. He pointed out that from residence of accused No.3 –Shamim Tabassum @ Baji, thirteen (13) C.D.s of blue films, books containing pornographical material and other articles were seized. He would submit that the sex racket could not have been run by accused No.3 - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji without assistance of other accused persons. Consequently, he urged to dismiss the applications. 14. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that the prosecutrix was medically examined and her approximate age, on the basis of ossification test, was determined to be between 14 to 16 years. The record shows that Municipal Council, Parbhani recorded her birth date as 28.6.1991. The birth certificate is issued by the Municipal Council. There are also school certificates, which indicate her birth date as 28.6.1991. She was a drop out student of 9th Standard. The said record cannot be brushed aside at this premature stage. True, the age of the prosecutrix was recorded as eighteen (18) years while recording the F.I.R. However, legality and correctness of the school record and the Municipal record cannot be predetermined only because there appears such statement recorded at the time of reducing the report of the prosecutrix into writing. The case law referred by learned Advocate Mr.Deshmukh is of no much help at this stage. The argument that the prosecutrix was not minor when she was apprehended by the Police in the hotel and gave the F.I.R., is prima facie, unacceptable in the face of various extracts of the school record and the Municipal certificate. 15. Mr.Piratwad A.P., learned Advocate for the applicant - Kaisar Siddiqui s/o Nasiruddin in Criminal Application No.4125 of 2007 would submit that the element of "seduction" is not prima facie borne out from the record. 15. Mr.Piratwad A.P., learned Advocate for the applicant - Kaisar Siddiqui s/o Nasiruddin in Criminal Application No.4125 of 2007 would submit that the element of "seduction" is not prima facie borne out from the record. He would submit that applicant Kaisar Siddiqui was found in the company of the prosecutrix in the hotel when she was picked up by the Police, by itself, cannot amount to his inducement to her for flesh trading. He seeks to rely on “Ramesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra” (AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1908). I find it difficult to countenance the argument of Mr. Piratwad. The material placed on record reveals that applicant - Kaisar Siddiqui was in the company of the prosecutrix at the hotel while she was being sent to Mumbai. Apparently, he was entrusted with the work of sending her to Mumbai for earning more bucks. He made her to consume liquor and also partook the liquor in the hotel near the private travel agency. He indecently behaved with the prosecutrix and kissed her in the hotel. The conduct of the applicant - Kaisar Siddiqui (accused No.2), prima facie, shows that he was knowing that the prosecutrix was seduced to do trading in the sex and was being sold to a "Party" at Mumbai. He, therefore, fondled with her and behaved indecently at the public place. Consequently, he has no right to claim innocence and does not deserve liberty. His bail application will have to be, therefore, rejected. 16. So far as applicant-Shivaji Kamble and Dulba Dhakne are concerned, it may be made clear that applicant - Shivaji is a Police Officer. Applicant - Dulba Dhakne is a Police Sub-Inspector. There isprima facie evidence to show that these applicants demanded sexual pleasures and, therefore, the prosecutrix was sent with them. It appears from the statement of the prosecutrix, which was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., that witness one Sangita Jangiri narrated that applicant Dulba Dhakne, P.S.I. contacted her on phone. Her statement also shows that the prosecutrix was sent with applicant - Dulba Dhakne in a while colour Maruti car. Thereafter, she was taken to Amrapali Hotel near Daulatabad T-point in the outskirts of Aurangabad. The prosecutrix and applicant -Dulba Dhakne went together in a room. Afterwards applicant - Dulba Dhakne paid amount of Rs.1,500/-to her. Her statement also shows that the prosecutrix was sent with applicant - Dulba Dhakne in a while colour Maruti car. Thereafter, she was taken to Amrapali Hotel near Daulatabad T-point in the outskirts of Aurangabad. The prosecutrix and applicant -Dulba Dhakne went together in a room. Afterwards applicant - Dulba Dhakne paid amount of Rs.1,500/-to her. Obviously, these two Police Officers were knowing that illegal brothel was being run by accused No.3 - Shamim Tabassum @ Baji. They used to obtain services of the girls provided by the brothel keeper. They could have the knowledge that the minor girls also were being exploited by the brothel keeper and were being induced to participate in the flesh trading. These applicants are not naïve and gullible customers. They are the experienced 17. Apart from what I prima facie find from the record regarding immoral acts of the applicants - Shivaji Kamble and Dulba Dhakne, it cannot be ignored that they are likely to influence the prosecutrix and the witnesses, if they are released on bail. There is possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The mere fact that these Police Officers may not have personal knowledge regarding age of the prosecutrix, by itself, cannot be a criteria in such a serious case to release them on bail. It is well settled that the possibility of tampering with the evidence is also a ground to reject the request for bail. In my opinion, the above two applicants have potential to cause impairment of the prosecution evidence. For this reason too they are not entitled to seek liberty. Their applications will have to be, therefore, rejected. 18. Similarly, applicant - Dileep Deshmukh, who has filed Criminal Application No.4225 of 2007, appears to be a politically influential person. The testimony of the prosecutrix reveals that applicant –Dileep Deshmukh took the prosecutrix and Shamim Tabassum @ Baji in his car vehicle. The prosecutrix gave statement to the effect that they were taken to Amrapali Hotel, situated in the outskirts of Aurangabad city where, Shamim Tabassum @ Baji and applicant -Dileep Deshmukh consumed whisky. They together took the meals and thereafter the prosecutrix was taken to a room in the hotel. She was again reached by Shamim Tabassum @ Baji upto the mill corner near car vehicle of applicant - Dileep Deshmukh, after about 10/15 days in the night time. They together took the meals and thereafter the prosecutrix was taken to a room in the hotel. She was again reached by Shamim Tabassum @ Baji upto the mill corner near car vehicle of applicant - Dileep Deshmukh, after about 10/15 days in the night time. He committed sexual intercourse with her on three occasions during the night at the room of Amrapali Hotel. He had shown a pistol/revolver, which was hung to his waist belt. He asked her whether she wanted to see the revolver/pistol. The prosecutrix was afraid when he pointed out the revolver. The applicant –Dileep Deshmukh, as stated by the prosecutrix, is a political leader. He carried a revolver/pistol while taking the prosecutrix to the hotel and showed it to her. The hidden intention could be to scare her. So, if such a person is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Consequently, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail pending the trial. His application will have to be, therefore, rejected. 19. So far as application of Shaikh Jaffar s/o Shaikh Ahmed (Criminal Application No.4039 of 2007) is concerned, it appears that he is absolutely a gullible customer. He could not have gathered information about minority of the prosecutrix. The applicant - Mirza Najiulla Baig (Criminal Application No.4040 of 2007) appears to be, prima facie, unconcerned with the sex racket and exploitation of the prosecutrix. He, in fact, made attempt to dissuade the other accused from indulging in immoral activities. These applicants are, therefore, entitled to claim liberty. Their bail applications will have to be granted. 20. Applicant - Yusufkhan s/o Akhtarkhan (Criminal Application No.4126 of 2007) seeks temporary bail to attend his wife for providing medical treatment to her. The grounds shown in the application are insufficient. No medical cetificate is filed. There are other family members, who can take care of her health. Hence, I am not impressed with the request made by applicant - Yusufkhan s/o Akhtarkhan for grant of temporary bail and his application will have to be, therefore, rejected. 21. Considering the foregoing discussion, and the circumstances available on record, it cannot be held that the prosecution has no evidence, whatsoever, against the applicants. Hence, I am not impressed with the request made by applicant - Yusufkhan s/o Akhtarkhan for grant of temporary bail and his application will have to be, therefore, rejected. 21. Considering the foregoing discussion, and the circumstances available on record, it cannot be held that the prosecution has no evidence, whatsoever, against the applicants. At this stage of considering bail applications, the Court is not at all required to find out as to whether the evidence is sufficient to infer guilt of the applicants or not. It is enough if sufficient grounds are shown to connect the applicants with the offence. The accused involved in offences, which are grave, serious and heinous do not have moral right to seek benefit of the discretionary relief. Those applicants, who are found to be gullible customers or petty persons may, under special circumstances, be granted the benefit of provisions contained under Section 437 or Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Considering serious nature of the offence and gravity of the allegations, this Court is of the considered view that there are no good and sufficient grounds for enlargement of the applicants namely, Kaisar Siddiqui s/o Nasiruddin (Criminal Application No.4125 of 2007), Yusufkhan s/o Akhtarkhan (Criminal Application No.4126 of 2007), Dileep s/o Shivajirao Deshmukh (Criminal Application No.4225 of 2007), Shivaji s/o Dagadu Kamble (Criminal Application No.4303 of 2007) and Dulba s/o Dadarao Dhakne (Criminal Application No.4304 of 2007) on bail during trial. As stated before, there is possibility that in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses, who are yet to be examined by the prosecution. 22. In the result, bail applications filed by of the applicants namely, Kaisar Siddiqui s/o Nasiruddin (Criminal Application No.4125 of 2007), Yusufkhan s/o Akhtarkhan (Criminal Application No.4126 of 2007), Dileep s/o Shivajirao Deshmukh (Criminal Application No.4225 of 2007), Shivaji s/o Dagadu Kamble (Criminal Application No.4303 of 2007) and Dulba s/o Dadarao Dhakne (Criminal Application No.4304 of 2007) are rejected. The bail applications filed by applicants Shaikh Jaffar s/o Shaikh Ahmed (Criminal Application No.4039 of 2007) and Mirza Najiulla Baig s/o Mirza Rizwan Baig (Criminal Application No.4040/2007) are, however, granted. These two (2) applicants be released on bail if P.B. and S.B. in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand) each with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court is furnished by them. 23. These two (2) applicants be released on bail if P.B. and S.B. in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand) each with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court is furnished by them. 23. The applications are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.