SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, November 15, 2023

Printed For: Dilraj Singh, Symbiosis Law School, Noida
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2019 SCC OnLine Bom 7524

In the High Court of Bombay

(BEFORE PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Mohammad Alam Mohammad Sharif Khan …

Applicant;
Versus
State of Maharashtra … Respondent.
Anticipatory Bail Appilcation No. 455 of 2019
Decided on February 21, 2019
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Neha M. Patil for the applicant.
Mr. Prashant Jadhav, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Vilas Kadam Police Inspector, Kandivali Police Station is present.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.:— This is an application for anticipatory bail in
connection with CR No. 417 of 2018 registered with Kandivali Police
Station. First Information Report was lodged on 12th August, 2018 for
the offence punishable under Section 354 read with 34 of Penal Code,
1860 and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim aged about 16 years
was proceeding to her house. Co-accused dragged her and caught her
hand. He was accompanied by applicant. It is alleged that the applicant
pulled the ‘dupatta’ of the victim and stated that victim should be
pulled down to accomplish their work. Victim started shouting and both
ran away from the place of incident. Co-accused was arrested and
subsequently granted bail.
3. Applicant had preferred application for anticipatory bail before the
Sessions Court which was rejected on 21st December, 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused was
arrested and granted bail. Chargesheet is filed against the arrested
accused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that considering the
role assigned to the applicant custodial interrogation of the applicant is
not necessary. Prosecution has not issued any notice under Section 41-
A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the applicant. Applicant was not
absconding.
5. However, learned APP pointed out role attributed to the applicant
in the FIR. It is submitted that co-accused was arrested and granted
bail. It is further submitted that applicant has one criminal antecedent
registered with Kandivali Police Station for the offence punishable under
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Printed For: Dilraj Singh, Symbiosis Law School, Noida
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 324, 323, 504 of Penal Code, 1860.

6. First Information Report was lodged on 12th August, 2018.
Applicant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the
Sessions Court which was rejected on 21st December, 2018. First
Information Report mentions the role played by the applicant.
Considering the factual matrix of this case, no case for grant of relief
under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure is made out.
Application is rejected.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.