AMAR SARAN AND S. K. JAIN, JJ. A prayer for bail has been made in this criminal appeal which has been filed by the appellants Chunnu alias Avinash and Narendra Kumar against the judgment and order dated 29. 8. 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffarnagar convicting the appellants and one Vinod Kumar, who has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5699 of 2006 to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 376 IPC, seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 366 IPC and five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under section 363 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. In brief, the facts of this case are that an FIR was lodged on 24. 5. 2001 that Km. Reeta Rani, aged about 16 years had gone to her intermediate college on 21. 4. 2001 for giving her examination. She had left the college at 2. 00 P. M. , but when she did not return till 5. 30 P. M. a search was made for her, but she could not be traced out. A suspicion was cast against the two appellants and Vinod (who also runs a photography shop) for the abduction. Or 13. 6. 2001 the victim Reeta Rani was recovered with the appellant Chunnu alias Avinash and Dolly alias Arvind and statemen1 of the girl was recorded. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case. 4. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that as per tin medical examination of the girl, which was conducted on 13. 6. 2001, the age of the girl was about 19 years and that there was no medical corroboration of the allegation of rape. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitte that Km. Reeta Rani has deposed in Court that on the date of incident she was 1 years in age, her date of birth being 24. 6. 1985. On the date of incident, she he gone to give her English Grammar Pap and had left the college where appellants Chunnu alias Avinash, Narendra Kunu accused Dolly and Vinod met her and they made her smell something because which she became unconscious. 6. 1985. On the date of incident, she he gone to give her English Grammar Pap and had left the college where appellants Chunnu alias Avinash, Narendra Kunu accused Dolly and Vinod met her and they made her smell something because which she became unconscious. They took her to Meerut where she learnt that & was in Meerut. All the four persons we together in Meerut. She does not know where they kept her in Meerut for 15 days. There was allegation of rape against all t four persons. After that they took her Kanpur where Dolly and Chunnu we present. Thereafter they took her to Agra where Dolly and Chunnu were with h where they raped her. On protest they threatened and intimidated her. Then they brought her to Muzaffarnagar where police apprehended them. She knew Vinod from before, who is running a photography shop and after giving her some thing intoxicated in milk, they have taken her obscene photographs, with which they used to black mail her. 6. It was argued that there is no reason to prefer the medical evidence of rape to the evidence of age given by the girl per her high school certificate. Even otherwise, there were allegations of gang rape in the circumstances when the girl was being blackmailed by the accused when they have. succeeded in taking some of her obscene photographs. The mere absence of injuries could not demolish the allegation of gang rape and when there are allegations of gang rape, it would not be material that the age of the girl is below 16 years or 19 years as no girl would voluntarily consent to have intercourse with number of persons. 7. It was argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate that judgment of conviction has been recorded on sound reasons. In this view of the matter, the prayer for bail to the appellants is refused. Bail Rajected. .