The ten convicts had filed applications for bail in the High Court through various advocates which were taken up for a joint hearing on Thursday. Justices V K Barde and J A Patil upheld the arguments by the defence counsels that the prosecution had failed to prove that the two girls were indeed minors, that is, below sixteen years. ``Their age remains debatable,'' the judges said.

While stating the there was no doubt that the girls were subjected to sexual intercourse, the judges held forth the fact that the girls continued to move from one place to other over a three-day period during which the offences were committed with every group of the accused, did not prove that the act waswithout their consent or against their will. ``They never raised a noise or complained to anybody about the incident in these three days; not even when they were at a public place like the (Parbhani) railway station,'' the judges held.

As for the different First Information Reports lodged in connection with the case, the judges pointed out that there was no sufficient ground why such a step was taken by the investigating officer. ``After the first complaint was made by the younger girl on July 7 at the Purna railway station, there was no need to file a fresh one on July 8 and 9, when the girl modified her statement. At best her consequent complaint could have been recorded as a suplementary statement to the FIR that she lodged on July 7,'' the judges said.

The police had registered the consequent FIRs on July 8 and 9, 1994 at the Monda and Kotwali police stations at Parbhani. The initial complaint at Purna does not make any reference to a rape. ``What the younger girl had said was that she was forciblymade to consume alcohol by `someone' at the Parbhani railway station and then something happened with her. All she could say was that she was experiencing a severe pain in her private parts,'' the defence counsels argued.

The defence counsels also argued that the girls could not have been `kidnapped' by the accused as it was the prosecution's case that they had left their house to evade the tortures inflicted upon them by their parents-guardians.

The bench also admitted the appeal of the petitioners against the lower court judgement.

CONVICTED

1) Nitin Doodgaonkar: (son of Limbaji Doodgaonkar, ex-chief of the Parbhani Zilla Parishad, and nephew of former Congress minister, Ganesh Doodgaonkar)

2) Kalyan Renge: (son of Bansidharrao Renge, ex-chief of the APMC)

3) Suryakant Ganpatrao Dhage

4) Arun Shahurao Mapari

5) Suresh Baburao Kopare

6) Rameshwar Kanade

7) Bhansingh Bundela (railway employee)

8) Raju Eknath Mahagale

9) Munna alias Ravindrasinh Parihar(Independent corporator, Parbhani)

10) Mahesh Motaphale