Allowed

Mubarak Lalsab Nadaf v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Oct 2015BA/1966/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, who was accused of aiding in the transportation of victims under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and IPC Section 370. The court noted he was a driver with no specific allegations against him and released him on cognizant bond with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on executing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Mubarak Lalsab Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

BA 1966-15.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1966 OF 2015

¶5

Mubarak Lalsab Nadaf.Applicant

¶6

v/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶8

Mr.J.J.Bardeskar, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶9

CORAM:REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE :27.10.2015

¶10

P.C.

¶11

.Heard learned counsel for the applicant

¶12

and the learned APP for the respondent – State.

¶13

2.By this application, the applicant

¶14

seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with
C.R.No.79 of 2015 registered with the Panhala
Police Station, Kolhapur, for the alleged
offences punishable under Section 370 of the
Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and under

¶15

1 of 5

¶16

BA 1966-15.doc

¶17

Sections 66(1)(B) & 68(A)(B) of the Bombay
Police Act.

¶18

3.Learned counsel for the applicant

¶19

states that the only allegation as against the
present applicant is that he was the driver of
the vehicle, in which the rescued/victim girls
were transported. He submits that no offence

¶20

under Section 370 of the I.P.C. or under the
PITA Act is made out as against the present
applicant. He states that some of the accused
i.e. the owner of the vehicle and the owner of
the house, which was used for prostitution
activities, have been enlarged on bail. He
submits that the applicant was working as a
driver on the vehicle, which was used for
transporting the victim girls.

¶21

4.Learned APP does not dispute the fact

¶22

that the applicant was working as driver on the

¶23

2 of 5

¶24

BA 1966-15.doc

¶25

vehicle. She states that the applicant was

¶26

driving the vehicle in which the victim girls

¶27

were transported from one place to another. She
fairly submits that the victim girls have not
disclosed the name of the present applicant in
their statements. Both, the learned counsel for
the applicant and the learned APP state that
there are no antecedents qua the applicant.

¶28

5.Considering the nature of allegations

¶29

and the role of the applicant, the applicant is
enlarged on bail on the following terms &
conditions:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail, on

¶32

executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with
one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶33

(ii) The applicant shall attend the Panhala
Police Station, Kolhapur on every Saturday
between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till the filing

¶34

3 of 5

¶35

BA 1966-15.doc

¶36

of the chargesheet;

¶37

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper or

¶38

attempt to influence or contact the complainant,
witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶39

(iv) The applicant shall inform his latest

¶40

place of residence and mobile contact number

¶41

immediately after being released and/or
change of residence or mobile details, if any,

¶42

from time to time to the Court seized of the
matter and to the Investigating Officer of the
concerned Police Station;

¶43

(v) The applicant to cooperate with the

¶44

conduct of the trial;

¶45

(vi) If there is a breach of any of the

¶46

aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to seek cancellation of the
applicant's bail.

¶47

6.The Application is allowed in the

¶48

aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

4 of 5

¶50

BA 1966-15.doc

¶51

7. It is made clear that the observations

¶52

made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court
shall decide the case on its own merits, in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.

¶53

All concerned to act on the

¶54

authenticated copy of this order.

¶55

 (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶56

5 of 5

Mubarak Lalsab Nadaf v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak Lalsab Nadaf 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

Yogesh Ashok Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamil Mustafa Shaikh @ Raju Bhai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babalu Dukhbandhu Shahoo Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Bhagoji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Umashankar Vishvkarma Vs the State of Maharashtra