JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present applications, the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.160/2007, registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. 2. Heard Shri B.R.Warma, Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Shri N.S.Ghanekar, Shri A.N.Nagargoje, Shri B.S.Deshmukh, Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, Shri H.T.Joshi, learned counsel, for the applicants and Shri N.B.Khandare, learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants that initially in the FIR, which has been lodged by the prosecutrix on 22nd April, 2007, the names of the present applicants, do not appear. It is submitted that only in her supplementary statement and so also in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Magistrate, the names of the present applicants, for the first time, have been implicated by her on 25th April, 2007. It is submitted that taking the prosecution case to be true in entirety, still no case is made out, so as to prima facie book the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the liberty granted by this court vide order dated 11th June, 2007, has not been misused by the applicants and the applicants have been regularly attending the Investigating Officer and cooperating with the Investigating Agency. 4. It is further submitted that from the missing report, which was lodged by the Aunt of the prosecutrix, in the month of November, 2006, at Parbhani, the age of the prosecutrix, is shown to be 16 years. It is further submitted that from the certificate, which has been produced on record by the Investigating Agency, it could be seen that the said certificate is, at least prima facie, not genuine inasmuch as the entry of birth, which is said to be of the year 1991, has been recorded in the year 1996, which is after the period of one year from the date of birth, and as such beyond the statutory period as provided under the Birth and Death Registration Act. 5. 5. Shri Khandare, learned Public Prosecutor, submits that from the school certificate of the prosecutrix, it can be clearly seen that her age on the date of registration of crime was 15 years, 9 months and 22 days. He submits that from the perusal of her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it would appear that she was compelled to have sexual intercourse with the accused and as such an offence under Section 376 of the IPC, was committed. He submits that for a moment, assuming without admitting that said act was with her consent, still since her age is below 16 years, her consent would be immaterial and even in that event, the accused could be booked for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that most of the applicants are Police Officers and others are political and social workers and as such, influential citizens. It is submitted that the accused have indulged into acts of tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses. He further submits that the Aunt of the prosecutrix has made an application to the Authorities of Remand Home for custody of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that it was done at the behest of the accused in order to secure her release from the Remand Home, where she is protected by the police. He submits that though the applicants have attended the police station as directed by this court, they have not co-operated with the investigation by either refusing to give answers or by giving vague answers. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt.Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) V/s Arun Kumar Bajoria reported in (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 52 and State Rep.by the C.B.I. V/s Anil Sharma reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 187, in support of the proposition that the investigation of a person armed with a pre-arrest order can not be equated with a custodial interrogation and as such the application for grant of anticipatory bail should be rejected. 7. I have perused the first statement of the prosecutrix, her supplementary statement and so also her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Magistrate, in the presence of the social worker. 8. 7. I have perused the first statement of the prosecutrix, her supplementary statement and so also her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Magistrate, in the presence of the social worker. 8. Since the matter is still under investigation, it will not be appropriate for me to reproduce the evidence collected by the prosecution, in view of the Law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another V/s Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others, reported in 1980 (2) Supreme Court Cases 559. 9. In that view of the matter, I refrain myself from dealing with the statement of the prosecutrix, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in detail. However, for consideration of the applications, it would be necessary to refer to some part of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not in dispute that the present applicants have been, for the first time, implicated in the supplementary statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 25th of April, 2007 and that they were not implicated in the FIR which was registered on 22nd of April, 2007. From the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that after the death of her father, her mother had remarried. As such, she was residing along with her maternal aunt. She has stated that on one occasion her aunt Mahananda had abused and assaulted her, and therefore, she left house at Parbhani and started for Aurangabad. It is stated that after she came to Aurangabad, she stayed there for some time and after that she returned to Parbhani. However, after her return to Parbhani, her cousin again assaulted her and thereafter, she again came back to Aurangabad and was residing at Mukundwadi. It is stated that at that time she met the accused Tabassum who was also known as Baji. It is alleged that thereafter, she went to reside with said Tabassum. After 2-4 days, she was taken to Mhaismal by Tabassum in one white car. When they went to Mhaismal, one person was sitting there. He was taking drinks. It is stated that at that time she met the accused Tabassum who was also known as Baji. It is alleged that thereafter, she went to reside with said Tabassum. After 2-4 days, she was taken to Mhaismal by Tabassum in one white car. When they went to Mhaismal, one person was sitting there. He was taking drinks. It is alleged that she was made to drink 7-8 glasses of cold drink and after consuming these drinks, she became dizzy and thereafter that unknown person took her inside the room and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is stated that thereafter they returned to Aurangabad. She took medical treatment for some time. 10. Insofar as the present applicants are concerned, the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has stated that after she recovered from the first incident, she thought that since the other girls were also indulging in the profession, there was nothing wrong for her to continue with the said profession. She has further stated that thereafter accused Tabassum compelled her to have sexual intercourse with various other persons in consideration of money. It is stated that she had intercourse with many persons. However, she was remembering the names of few of them and accordingly the present applicants are roped in by her. 11. However, from the perusal of the statement, it would reveal that she has stated that all these persons had paid certain amount to her in consideration of having sexual intercourse with her. It has been further stated by her that while accused Tabassum had kept entire money for herself on some occasions, on other occasions, the amount was shared by Tabassum and her in the ratio of fifty/fifty. It has been further stated that she had purchased clothes and ornaments out of the amount earned by her. 12. Insofar as her age is concerned, no doubt that the prosecution has placed on record, her birth certificate, which shows that on the date of the incident, she was 15 years, 9 months and 22 days. However, her missing report is also on record, wherein her Aunt has shown her age to be 16 years, in the month of November, 2006. At least, at this stage, there is no conclusive proof to show that she was less than 16 years of age. However, her missing report is also on record, wherein her Aunt has shown her age to be 16 years, in the month of November, 2006. At least, at this stage, there is no conclusive proof to show that she was less than 16 years of age. It can not also be said at this stage that accused were aware of her age at the time of having sexual intercourse with her. From the perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, at least, prima facie, it appears that she had attained the age of understanding and she was knowing as to what would be right or wrong and after the first incident, she had voluntarily indulged in the profession and had intercourse with the applicants and other persons in consideration of money. She has given the details about the amount received by her from various applicants, which varies from person to person. As already observed by me in the order dated 11th June, 2007 that all the applicants are Police Officers or social workers or political workers and as such, are expected to keep high moral standards. However, while considering the application, this court cannot be swayed away by moralistic principles but has to consider the application on its own merit in the light of material available against the applicants. 13. From the perusal of her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, at least, prima facie, it would appear that the case under Section 376 of the IPC could be made out against accused Tabassum and the first person who had forcible sexual intercourse with her at Mhaismal. Insofar as, the present applicants are concerned, prima facie, it is clear from her statement that the prosecutrix had a sexual intercourse with the applicants on her own accord in consideration of money. 14. Insofar as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Rep. by the C.B.I. V/s Anil Sharma (supra), relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor, is concerned, the prosecution in the said case was under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the accused was charged with acquiring huge wealth far in excess of his known sources of income. In that view of the matter, the court found that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary, so as to investigate the case properly. In that view of the matter, the court found that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary, so as to investigate the case properly. In the said case, there was also apprehension that the accused would influence the witness and that the said apprehension was found to be reasonable by the court. 15. Insofar as the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt.Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) V/s Arun Kumar Bajoria (supra), is concerned, wherein Their Lordships of the Apex Court, after perusal of the files found that the seriousness of allegations and magnitude of amount involved, did not entitle the person to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. In that view of the matter, the bail granted to the accused therein, came to be rejected. 16. While considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail, the following four factors would be relevant. (i) the nature and gravity or seriousness of accusation as apprehended by the applicant; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a Court, previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested; and (iv) the possibility of the appellant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice. 17. Insofar as the first factor is concerned, no doubt that the applicants are charged with a serious offence under Section 376 of the IPC. However, as already discussed here-in-above, at least prima facie and at least insofar as the present applicants are concerned, the accusation under Section 376 of the IPC, does not appear to be well founded. 18. Insofar as the second factor is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that the present applicants are having any criminal antecedents or are convicted by the Court or have previously undergone any imprisonment in respect of any cognizable offence. 19. Insofar as the third factor is concerned, that would not be relevant for the present case. Though there may not be a prima facie case under Section 376 of the IPC, but still, the applicants could be involved in the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. 20. 19. Insofar as the third factor is concerned, that would not be relevant for the present case. Though there may not be a prima facie case under Section 376 of the IPC, but still, the applicants could be involved in the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. 20. Insofar as the fourth factor is concerned, it could be seen that all the applicants are either Police Officers, Political and Social Workers and they all are permanent residents of Aurangabad or nearby Districts. All of them have deep roots in the society and as such there is no possibility of fleeing away from the ends of the justice. 21. Insofar as the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the applicants have not abided the conditions, is concerned, it is not disputed that on almost all dates, the applicants have attended the Investigating Officer, as directed by this court. The only contention is that they have not answered some of the questions and have answered some of the questions vaguely. However, except the vague allegations in this respect, no details are given. In no case, the accused can be compelled to give evidence against him. 22. Insofar as the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor, in respect of the influencing of the witnesses are concerned, it can be seen that the only evidence against the applicants, is the statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is now stationed in the Remand Home at Aurangabad. As already stated, she is fully protected in the Remand Home and is under the protection of the police, so there appears no question of applicants being in a position to influence the prosecutrix. 23. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the applications. i) The applications are allowed on the same terms and conditions as were imposed by this court vide order dated 11th June, 2007. However, all the applicants are directed to report to the Investigating Officer, on every Tuesday and Friday, between 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m., till filing of the chargesheet. ii) It is made clear that the observations made here-in-above are prima facie in nature and limited for the disposal of the present applications for anticipatory bail. Nothing observed herein should be construed to have been observed on the merits of the matter. ii) It is made clear that the observations made here-in-above are prima facie in nature and limited for the disposal of the present applications for anticipatory bail. Nothing observed herein should be construed to have been observed on the merits of the matter. The learned trial court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial and will decide the case on merit.