Allowed

Mohd Sohel Mohd Narul Huq v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Nov 2014BA/2137/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, who was arrested for kidnapping, abduction, abduction for purpose of marriage, rape, and POCSO offences. The court noted prima facie confusion regarding the applicant's initial identification in the FIR but granted bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail by furnishing a Police Surety Bond of Rs. 15,000 and one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to reporting to the police station and not tampering with eviden

Mohd Sohel Mohd Narul Huq Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

13.ba2137.14.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2137 OF 2014

¶5

Mohd. Sohel Mohd. Narul Huq. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Indrajeet Joshi, advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused papers.

¶11

2 This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 20/1/2014 in Crime No. 262 of 2013 registered at Kurar Police Station, Mumbai for offence punishable under section 363, 366(a), 376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Talwalkar

1/4

2 13.ba2137.14.sxw

3 On 15/9/2013 father of the victim lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that on 5/9/2013 his daughter had left the house in the company of her friend Pradnya Ashok More. She did not return home. Hence, he has lodged a missing report which was registered as 16 of 2013. On 14/9/2013 he learnt that his daughter was moving around in the same locality. He approached her and questioned her about her whereabouts after 5/9/2013 and she had disclosed him that since childhood she is in love with one Pappu Yadav and she had left house in his company. The name of the applicant does not appear in the first information report. On 15/9/2013 the statement of the victim was recorded. In the said statement also name of the applicant does not surface. The victim was subjected for clinical examination on 15/9/2013 wherein she had given history of sexual assault upon her. On 18/9/2013 supplementary statement was recorded, in which she has alleged that she was in the company of Pappu Yadav. He had ravished her on 5/9/2013 and had asked her to return home. He had boarded her in the local train. She alighted from the local train from Dadar Station. She could not fine road to go to her house and therefore, she reached Sanpada railway station on 6/9/2013. She had met a stranger whom

Talwalkar

2/4

3 13.ba2137.14.sxw

she asked about her address. He had take her to the house of one woman referred as Bhabi. She learnt that the name of the said boy was Sohel. She was in the company of Sohel/Soyab from 7/9/2013 till 14/9/2013. He had brought clothes for her. They had also gone to various places. According to her, he had disclosed to her that he is in love with her and on the basis of the same, he had ravished her. He has carried the incident from 7/9/2014 till 14/9/2014. On 14/9/2014 she had attempted to escape from the said room and had asked about it to various people and had reach in the said area. It prima facie appears that there is some confusion. The name and identity of the applicant was not disclosed either in the first statement which was given by the father of the victim or the statement of the victim which was recorded on 15/9/2013. Learned APP submits that the cell phone of the victim was recovered from the possession of the applicant. However, there is no investigation to that effect.

¶20

4 The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. The applicant has been in jail for almost 11 months. The applicant has made out prima facie case for grant of bail and

Talwalkar

3/4

4 13.ba2137.14.sxw

5 The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and shall not be considered for the purpose of deciding discharge application or the Sessions Court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial.

¶25

6 Hence, the following order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The application is allowed.

¶28

(ii) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall report to concerned Police Station on four consecutive Sundays between 10 a.m. to 12 noon after he is enlarged on bail.

¶31

7 The application is disposed of.

¶32

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)

¶33

Talwalkar

¶34

4/4

Mohd Sohel Mohd Narul Huq v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sohel Mohd Narul Huq 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

Subhash Kisan Bansode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharsahtra

Subhash Kisan Bansode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharsahtra

Vinod Maruti Ijare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganpat Dharma Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ghanshyam Shantaram Dethe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Gaffar S/O Shanaaz Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra