Dismissed

Mamoon Gafoor Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Feb 2008APPLN/260/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application under section 439 of the CrPC, the High Court of Bombay rejected the bail application of an appellant convicted of rape and abduction. The court found prima-facie complicity and, considering the grave nature of the offences punishable with life or ten years imprisonment, held that bail was not entitled.

What did the court decide?

The application for bail is rejected and the appellant is not entitled to bail.

Mamoon Gafoor Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 260 OF 2008

Mamoon Gafoor Khan

Applicant

vs.

The state of maharashtra

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Mrs. Nasreen Ayubi, Advocate for the applicant

¶12

Mr. K. U. Saste, APP for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J.

¶14

DATE : FEBRUARY 13, 2008

¶15

¶16

. The applicant has been arrested on 22nd April 2007 in connection with the offence registered with C.B.D. Police Staton Belapur, under C.R. No.I. 69 of 2007 for

¶17

the offence punishable under section 366, 376 and 506 of

¶18

Indian Penal Code.

¶19

2.		The pros	ecution c	ase, b	riefly stated	, is that	the
compl	ainant	is the	marr	ied	woman	from	Ba	nglades	h.	She	and
her	husband	were	residi	ng	with	their	one	and	half	year	old
son	at	Nerul,	Navi	Mu	mbai.	Some	time	in	April	2004	the

¶20

¶21

applicant	want	ed to	go	her		native	place		in	Ban	gladesh.
Her	husband	told her	to	go		along wit	h o	ne	Sham	iul who	was
also	going	to their	h	ome		town.		The	a	pplicant	is
accompan	ying	Shamiul.		Init	ia	lly the	appl	icant		went	to
Belpada	and	haulted	at	the	h	ouse of	a	relati	ve.		Shamiul
is	alleged	to have	ra	ped	h	er there.		There	after	she	was
brought	by the	accused	Nos.		1	to 3	to	in	the	nursery	near
Kokan	Bhavan	where		again	s	he was	raped	by		the	accused
including	the	appli	cant	b	y	rotation.			Ther	eafter,	the
applicant	was	sold	to	some		person	and	brou	ght	to	Sapana
building	at	Pune,	w	herefrom		the	comp	lainan	t	fled	and

¶22

lodged the FIR. The applicant and the other accused were

¶23

arrested on her complaint.

¶24

It is true that there are no independent eye

¶25

witnesses.	Ho	wever,	complaina	nt who		is the	victim	and	who
has	been	subjected	to	rape	has	specific	ally n	amed	the
applicant	and	the	other	accused	in	the	complaint.		They
were	previously	known	to	her.		No	reason	has	been

¶26

attributed by the complainant to falsely implicate the

¶27

accused in the crime. Prima-facie complicity of the

¶28

applicant to the crime is established.

¶29

The applicant had previously made application for

¶30

bail	before	the	Session	Court.	The	learned	Sess	ion Judge,
after	con	sidering	all	the material	before	him	has	come to

¶31

¶32

the conclusion that prima-facie the applicant is connected

¶33

with the crime. I find no reason to take a different view

¶34

in the matter.

¶35

5.	The offence	is of	serio	us natur	e, punishable with
imprisonment	for	life	or	for	10 years.	In	view	of	the
fact that	there		is	pr	ima-facie	material		against	the
applicant	and	takin	g	into	consideration	gravit	y	of	the

¶36

offence, the applicant is not entitled to bail. Hence,

¶37

the application for bail is rejected.

¶38

Sd/[ D. G. KARNIK, J.]

Mamoon Gafoor Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamoon Gafoor Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanaji Ankush Kadam and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rafiq Ibrahim Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sakhubai Ganpati Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sameer Mubarak @ Abdul Maniyar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Altaf Mubarak @ Abdul Maniyar Vs the State of Maharashtra

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Vishnu Karbhari Gaikwad and Ors.