Bombay High Court
Mohd. Asar Mohd. Sami vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 8 August, 2018
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
0808APEAL460.18-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRI. APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2018
APPELLANT :- Mohd. Asar Mohd. Sami, Aged about 22
(In Jail) years, Occ-Labour/Driver, R/o Ballarpur,
Tahsil-Ballarpur, District-Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station-
Ballarpur, District-Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.A.Choube, counsel for the appellant.
Mrs.Shamsi Haider, APP for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 08.08.2018. O R A L J U D G M E N T
Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:43 :::
0808APEAL460.18-Judgment 2/6
2. This is an appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging order dated 15/06/2018 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur (Sessions Court) rejecting the application for bail, filed by the appellant.
3. The appellant is the accused against whom First Information Report (FIR) dated 18/03/2018 was registered for offences punishable under sections 363, 377, 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8, 11(1) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It has also come on record that an FIR was registered on the same date i.e. on 18/03/2018 at the behest of the appellant against elder brother of the complainant in the present case.
4. The allegation against the appellant is that he picked up the complainant, a boy allegedly 13 years old, in his vehicle and indulged in actions giving rise to the aforesaid allegations under the provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act. In the statement of the complainant recorded by the police, details of the incident ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:43 ::: 0808APEAL460.18-Judgment 3/6 as reported in the oral report have been repeated. Thereafter, by a supplementary statement, it has been stated that after the appellant had allegedly intimated the said activities to his elder brother, the said brother of the minor complainant had reached the house of the appellant where a scuffle took place, resulting into the injuries to the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the FIR in the present case has been registered against him as a counter blast to the FIR registered at his behest on the same day for offence punishable under section 324 of the IPC against the elder brother of the complainant. It is contended that a perusal of the two FIRs, particularly pertaining to the time when the information was received at the police station, indicates that after the appellant had reported the incident of violence inflicted upon him by the brother of the minor complainant, as a counter blast, the said FIR was registered against the appellant for the several offences under the IPC and POCSO Act. It was also pointed out that the arrest memo of the appellant shows that he was arrested on 19/03/2018 at about 7.30 p.m. According to the learned counsel, the said fact gives credence to his contention that the ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:43 ::: 0808APEAL460.18-Judgment 4/6 entire set of allegations made against him were an afterthought and a counter blast.
6. The Sessions Court has rejected the application for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant essentially on the ground that serious offences are registered against him and that there is every possibility of the appellant threatening the minor victim, if he released on bail.
7. In the present case, the appellant was arrested on 14/03/2018 at 7.30 p.m. and he has continued to remain behind bars. Although the allegations made against the appellant are of serious nature, only seriousness of the allegations cannot be a ground for refusal of grant of bail. In the present case, there is material to show that prima facie there appears to be a process of afterthought in the manner in which the complaints have been made by both the parties against each other.
8. The appellant has been behind bars for more than 5 months. Now the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. In this situation, there appears ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:43 ::: 0808APEAL460.18-Judgment 5/6 to be no reason why the appellant cannot be granted conditional bail. The apprehension that the appellant could threaten the minor complainant and his family can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions on the appellant while granting bail.
9. In the light of the above, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on the following conditions.
(1) The appellant shall furnish PR bond for an amount of Rs.25,000/- and the surety in the like amount. (2) The appellant shall not enter Ballarshah, District Chandrapur during pendency of the trial, except when required by the Court concerned.
(3) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten witnesses during course of the trial. (4) The appellant shall submit an undertaking of good behaviour to the Sessions Court during pendency of the trial.
::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:43 :::
0808APEAL460.18-Judgment 6/6
10. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited only to question of grant of bail and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The Trial Court shall proceed to decide the case on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2018 00:54:43 :::