Allowed

Suraj Premsingh Duglach and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Oct 2016APPLN/5504/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding an FIR for kidnapping and seducing a minor under IPC 363 and 366A, the High Court allowed bail, holding that the appellant-husband was prima facie not involved and further detention was not warranted post-charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000 each and furnishing solvent sureties.

Suraj Premsingh Duglach and Anr. Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

(1)Cri. Appln. No. 5504 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Criminal Application No. 5504 of 2016

¶5

District : Ahmednagar

¶6

1.Suraj Premsingh Duglach,
Age : 26 years,
Occupation : Labour.
2.Sana Suraj Duglach,
Age : 21 years,
Occupation : Labour.
Both R/o. Ashwi,
Taluka : Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar... Applicants.

¶7

versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through its Home Department. .. Respondent.

¶8

............

¶9

Mr. A.Z. Gandhi, Advocate, for applicants.

¶10

Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.

¶11

............

¶12

CORAM : A.M. BADAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 25TH OCTOBER 2016

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

Applicants / accused in Crime No. I-58/2016
registered with Police Station, Ashvi, Taluka
Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, for offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366A read with Section

¶16

(2)Cri. Appln. No. 5504 of 2016

¶17

34 of the Indian Penal Code, by this application, are
seeking their release on bail after filing of the
charge-sheet.

¶18

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for
applicants / accused as well as the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent /
State.

¶19

3.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed
the application by contending that the crime in
question is serious as minor girl aged about 14 years
and 4 months was kidnapped by the present applicant
from the custody of her lawful guardian for forcing
or seducing her to illicit intercourse.

¶20

4.Perused the charge-sheet. The crime in
question is registered on the basis of FIR Lodged by
Sugra w/o. Ramjan Pathan on 05.08.2016. She alleged
that her minor daughter was taken by applicant no.2
Sana Duglach on the pretext of going for marketing
but she had not returned her daughter. Informant -
mother Sugra Pathan pointed finger of suspicion
towards applicant no.2 Sana Duglach and her husband
i.e. applicant no.1 Suraj Duglach in kidnapping her
minor daughter. Ultimately during investigation,
minor daughter of the informant as well as applicant
no.2 Sana Duglach were apprehended at Hubli by
Police.

¶21

(3)Cri. Appln. No. 5504 of 2016

¶22

5.Statement of female victim shows that
applicant no.2 Sana Duglach had taken her to Pune
where they stayed for 5 - 6 days. Then applicant
no.2 Sana Duglach took her to Hubli and then to
Mumbai. They both then returned to Hubli after one
day. When they were leaving for Secunderabad, as per
the version of the minor female victim, Police
apprehended them. Prima facie it is seen that
applicant no.1 Suraj Duglach is not involved in
commission of the crime in question. Section 366A of
the IPC requires intention to force or seduce minor
girl to illicit intercourse with another person. The
minor female victim was in company of applicant no.2
Sana Duglach for fairly large period. Her statement
does not disclose that applicant no.2 Sana Duglach
had taken any step for forcing or seducing her to
indulge in illicit intercourse with another person.

¶23

6.In this view of the matter, after filing of
the charge-sheet, further pre-trial detention of
applicants is not warranted.

¶24

7.Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶25

(a)The Application is allowed.

¶26

(b)Applicants / accused, in the above crime, on
their executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-
each and on furnishing one or more solvent sureties
of the like amount by each of them.

¶27

(4)Cri. Appln. No. 5504 of 2016

¶28

(c)As conditions of this order, applicants shall
abide by the following directives :-

¶29

(i) Applicants shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any persons acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade them
from disclosing such facts either to the
Court or to any police officer.

¶30

(ii) Applicants shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner and
shall cooperate the learned trial Judge in
expeditious disposal of the trial against
them.

¶31

(iii) Applicants shall not repeat
commission of similar type of offences in
future.

¶32

(d)The Application stands disposed of in the above
terms.

¶33

( A.M. BADAR )
 JUDGE

¶34

 puranik / CRIAPPLN5504.16

Suraj Premsingh Duglach and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Premsingh Duglach and Anr. 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

Gautam S/O Laxman Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uday S/O Dyaneshwar Ghaiwat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwajit S/O Ramesh Kasar Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Yogesh Walmik Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kundan S/O Roopsingh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Navnath Changdeo Jondhale Vs Shiva Bhima Telang and Others