Bombay High Court
Stifanraj Murgesh Nadar vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2024
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2024:BHC-AS:11421
18-BA-1314-23.DOC
Sayali Upasani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.- 1314 OF 2023
Stiffanraj Murgesh Nadar ... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
Ms. M. B. Shirsat with Fehmida Ahmed and Deepak Thakur,
for Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State-Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Apurva Gupte, for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Vishal Chandanshive, PI, Present.
CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED:- 7th MARCH, 2024
PC:-
1) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP for the State.
2) The applicant, who has been arraigned in CR No.467 of
2022 registered with Sewree Police Station, Mumbai, for the
offences punishable under Sections 377, 354C, 292 and 201 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal
Code"), Sections 66E and 76A of the Information Technology Act,
2000 ("IT Act") and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the POCSO"), has preferred this
application to enlarge him on bail.
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2024 12:52:41 :::
18-BA-1314-23.DOC
3) The gravamen of indictment against the applicant and the
co-accused is that the applicant and co-accused - Ramesh had
surreptitiously prepared obscene videos of the females in their
private moments. Lawrence, the first informant had found a
pendrive containing such obscene videos in his house. Those
videos in the pendrive were transferred by Lawrence to his
desktop computer.
4) At the outset, the learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the co-accused - Ramesh has been released on
bail by this Court by an order dated 3 rd January, 2024. The
applicant is similarly circumstanced.
5) The learned APP and the learned Counsel, appointed to
espouse the cause respondent No. 2, contest the submissions on
behalf of the applicant. It was submitted that the role of the
applicant is distinct from that of Ramesh, who has been released
on bail. In fact, the pendrive which contained obscene videos
belonged to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant does not
deserve to be released on bail.
6) While releasing the co-accused -Ramesh on bail, this Court
had observed as under:-
9. "I have carefully perused the report under
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ("the Code") and the documents annexed with
it including the statements of the victims and
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2024 12:52:41 :::
18-BA-1314-23.DOC
Lawrence. The prosecution specifically alleges that
the videos were prepared by co-accused Satish. The
applicant had allegedly allowed the co-accused to
use his room to take those videos. It is further
alleged that co-accused Sarvanand and Satish
destroyed the evidence by reformatting the mobile
phone handset of Lawrence.
10. Evidently, the incident of sexual exploitation of
a male friend of Sarvanand, by co-accused
Sarvanand and Satish, had occurred prior to two
years. Prima facie, the applicant has no nexus with
the said incidents and, therefore, the offence under
Section 377 of the Penal Code cannot be attributed
to the applicant.
11. Secondly, as regards the offences under
Sections 66E and 67A, the role attributed to the
applicant is that of facilitating the recording of
videos by the co-accused from his room. The
statement of victim "L" prima facie indicates that
the videos were taken from the room which was in
the occupation of the applicant for a while. The
learned Counsel for the applicant attempted to
draw home the point that the said video was
allegedly recorded in the month of February, 2001
by which time the applicant had already vacated
the said room. I am afraid, at this stage, the said
issue cannot be delved into elaborately.
12. Nonetheless, the situation which emerges is
that the offence under Section 354C, which can be
attributed to the applicant, entails punishment
which may extend to three years and it is bailable.
Offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act also
entails punishment which may extend to three
years. Likewise Section 66E of the IT Act provides
punishment of three years for violation of privacy.
Section 67A of the IT Act entails punishment for a
term which may extend to five years and for
subsequent conviction, the punishment may extend
to seven years.
3/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2024 12:52:41 :::
18-BA-1314-23.DOC
13. The applicant has been in custody since 6th
September, 2022. Investigation is complete for all
intent and purpose. The charge-sheet has been
lodged. At this stage, the genesis of the occurrence
cannot be lost sight of. Lawrence, who is the
brother of co-accused Stephen, allegedly found a
pendrive in his home, of which co-accused Stephen
Nadar was also an occupant. The said pendrive
allegedly contained the offending videos.
14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, especially
having regard to the allegations that the applicant
had facilitated the recording of videos, particularly
of victim "L", by allowing the co- accused to use his
room, which may fall within the dragnet of the
offences under Section 354C of the Penal Code and
Section 12 of the POCSO Act and entail
punishment which may extend to three years and
the applicant has already been in custody for more
than one year and three months, I am inclined to
exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
The apprehension on the part of the prosecution
can be taken care of by imposing stringent
conditions..."
7) In the backdrop of the nature of the accusation, the
aforesaid reasons govern the facts of the case of the applicant, as
well. The applicant has been in custody since 1 st September,
2022. Having regard to the nature of the accusation and the
witnesses which the prosecution may be required to examine in
support of the charge against the applicant and the co-accused,
it is unlikely that the trial can be concluded within a reasonable
period.
8) I am, therefore, inclined to exercise the discretion in favour
of the applicant by imposing stringent conditions.
4/6
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2024 12:52:41 :::
18-BA-1314-23.DOC
9) Hence, the following order.
:ORDER:
(i) The application stands allowed.
(ii) The applicant be released on bail in CR No.467 of
2022 registered with Sewree Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 354C, 292 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 66E and 76A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(iii) The applicant shall attend Sewree Police Station, Mumbai, on the first Monday of every alternate month between 10.00 am. to 12.00 noon for the period of two years or till conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier.
(iv) The applicant shall not contact the first informant or any of the victims or any of the witnesses or the absconding accused in any manner whatsoever or give 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2024 12:52:41 ::: 18-BA-1314-23.DOC threat or inducement or promise to the victims or first informant or any of the witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
(v) The applicant shall not enter the limits of Sewree Police Station till the conclusion of the trial, except for attending the Police Station on the specified days.
(vi) The applicant shall furnish the details of his permanent address and contact number to the Investigating Officer and intimate the change, if any, therein.
(vii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.
(viii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2024 12:52:41 :::