Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Wajidali Israr Malik vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 January, 2020

Author: Sandeep. K. Shinde

Bench: Sandeep. K. Shinde

                                                                     12.BA-3299-2019.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3299 OF 2019

         Wajidali Israr Malik                               ...Applicant
               Versus
         The State of Maharashtra
         and Anr.                                           ...Respondents
                                               ...
         Mr. Sushil M. Gaglani, Advocate for the Applicant.
         Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
         Mr. D.A. Patil, A.P.I. Dindoshi Police Station.
                                               ...

                                         CORAM : SANDEEP. K. SHINDE, J.
                                         DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2020.
         P.C.

                        Heard.

         1.             It is an application under Section 439 of Code
         of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short).


         2.             Applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in
         Crime No.340 of 2019 registered with Dindoshi Police
         Station for the alleged offences punishable under


Najeeb                                                                                      1/5



          ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 01:19:25 :::
                                                             12.BA-3299-2019.doc


         Sections 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"
         for short) r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children
         from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO" for short).


         3.            Perused the final report. This case is
         squarely covered by dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
         the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras AIR 1965
         942, wherein it was held thus :
               "Where a minor girl alleged to be taken away by the
         accused person, had left her father's protection
         knowing and having capacity to know the full import of
         what she was doing and voluntarily joined the accused,
         it could not be said that the accused had taken her away
         from the keeping of her lawful guardian within the
         meaning of section 361 of IPC".


         4.            In this case as on the date of the incident,
         the victim was 17 years and 11 months old. Evidence on
         record including the statement of victim's mother, it
         is indicative of the fact that the victim had
         volunteered and submitted to the physical desires of

Najeeb                                                                             2/5



         ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020         ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 01:19:25 :::
                                                             12.BA-3299-2019.doc


         the applicant. Additional statement of victim's mother
         recorded on 15.07.2019 reinforces this fact.


         5.            The applicant has been in the custody since
         15.07.2019. The investigation in the case is over.


         6.            Learned APP contended that the psychiatric
         evaluation of the victim done before the alleged
         incident shows victim was diagnosed with the border
         line personality disorder.        I have also perused the
         narration of the victim to the Medical Officer which
         also reinforces of the fact that she was love with the
         applicant and had voluntarily joined his company. The
         fact cannot be overlooked that as on the date of the
         incident, the applicant had mental capacity to know
         what she was doing.


         7.            In view of the facts of the case, the
         application is allowed and the applicant is directed
         to be released on bail on the following conditions.



Najeeb                                                                             3/5



         ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020         ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 01:19:25 :::
                                                               12.BA-3299-2019.doc


                                        ORDER

(i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

(ii) The applicant shall not live in the vicinity /jurisdiction in which the victim resides till the charge is framed;

(iii) The applicant shall furnish the particulars of his residential address as well as permanent address and contact details to the investigating officer within seven days from the date of his release on bail;

(iv) The applicant shall not establish, directly or indirectly any contact with the victim or other witnesses;

(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned Najeeb 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 01:19:25 :::

12.BA-3299-2019.doc with the case;

(vi) The prosecution is at liberty to move the Court in case, the applicant attends to influence the victim and contact her ;

8. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed off.

9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of granting bail and the same shall not in any way influence the trial in other proceedings.

(SANDEEP. K. SHINDE, J.) Najeeb 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 01:19:25 :::