Allowed

Malika Bi Shaikh @ Malika Bibi Jafar Hussain Sayed v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Aug 2017BA/986/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for accused charged with prostitution-related offences under IPC, POCSO, and PITA. Court noted lack of material evidence regarding victim's age, completion of investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents, leading to granting of bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; directed to be released on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties; required to attend trial.

Malika Bi Shaikh @ Malika Bibi Jafar Hussain… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Vina k sr.913.ba.986.2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 986 OF 2017

¶4

Mrs. Malika Bibi Jafar Hussain Sayed …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent ----------

¶5

Mr. Raviraj Paramane for the applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent – State. PSI Bade, Mumbra Police Station present.

¶6

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 2^nd AUGUST, 2017.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

This is an application for bail in connection with C.R. No.I-

¶9

11/2016 registered with Mumbra Police Station, Thane. The offences

¶10

were registered under sections 370(2)(3) of IPC and sections 4, 8 & 17 of POCSO Act as well as sections 3, 4 & 5 of PITA Act.

¶11

The FIR was registered on 5^th January, 2016 at the instance of informant API Shri Thakur attached to AHTC, Crime Branch Thane City. A secret information was received about prostitution activities being carried out within the jurisdiction of Mumbra Police Station by

¶12

1 / 5

¶13

Vina k sr.913.ba.986.2017.doc

¶14

accused Shehnaz Sharif. Hence, trap was laid and accordingly raid was conducted at the premises with the help of decoy customer and three accused were found procuring victims for prostitution. The accused were arrested and three victims were rescued.

¶15

On the date of raid i.e. 5^th January, 2016, accused namely Shehnaz Sharif Shabir, Malika Shaikh, Shabeena Qureshi were also arrested. The statement of one of the victim who was minor namly Muskan Sayed was recorded on 6^th January, 2016. In the said statement, she had stated that she comes from poor family and she was in need of money. The accused Shehnaz contacted her and induced her to indulge into the prostitution activities. It was represented that she would earn good amount by indulging in such activities. In the FIR, it is stated that it was disclosed to the complainant by the said victim that the applicant is the person who used to take her to the said premiss for indulging into the said activitites.

¶16

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the coaccused Shehnaz Sharif Shabir, Shabeena Qureshi were granted bail by this Court. It was submitted that the victim minor girl had stated in her statement dated 6^th January, 2016 that Shehnaj had induced

¶17

2 / 5

¶18

Vina k sr.913.ba.986.2017.doc

¶19

her to indulge in the prosttution activities. The said accused had been granted bail by this Court. The other accused Shabina who is owner of the premises where the alleged activities being carried out and who is the person who had played prime role along with the applicant is also granted bail by thi Court.

¶20

Learned APP submitted that accused are involved in serious crime. One of the victim was a minor girl who was induced to indulge into such activities. The FIR refers to the involvement of the present applicant. He relied upon the contents of the FIR wherein it is submitted that the minor girl had informed the complainant that she was being induced to indulge into the activities by the applicant.

¶21

It is therefore application for bail may be rejected.

¶22

Perused the documents on record and orders granting bail passed by this Court in favour of the co-accused. The statement of the victim minor girl refers to involvement of Shehnaz who has been granted bail vide Criminal Bail Application No.2414 of 2016 by order dated 7^th December, 2016. The other accused Shabeena who was present at the place of incident at the time of raid, was also arrested alongwith applicant also granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Bail

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

Vina k sr.913.ba.986.2017.doc

¶25

Application No.1609 of 2016 by order dated 16^th February, 2017.

¶26

It is also pertinent to note that in the order dated 7^th December, 2016 it has been obsrved that victim girl namely Muskan has narrated her age as 15 years. However, there is hardly any material including her birth certificate, school leaving certificate and Ossification test to justify invoking provisions of POCSO against the accused. It is also observed that investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed and there are no criminal antecedents against the said accused.

¶27

It is submitted that there are no anticedents against the applicant. In these circumstances, case for bail is made out. Hence, I pass following order;

¶28

:: ORDER ::

¶29

(i) Bail Application No.986 of 2017 is allowed.

¶30

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.I-11/2016 registered with Mumbra Police Station, Thane on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only.) with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶31

4 / 5

¶32

Vina k sr.913.ba.986.2017.doc

¶33

(iii) The applicants shall attend the trial Court on the date of hearing and on failure to attend the Court taking up the trial for two consecutive dates will entail concellation of her bail.

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and/or evidence.

¶35

[PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]

¶36

5 / 5

Malika Bi Shaikh @ Malika Bibi Jafar Hussain Sayed v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malika Bi Shaikh @ Malika Bibi Jafar Hussain Sayed 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

Sunil Azad Kagda Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay @ Raju Chandrakant Mahadik Vs the State of Maharashtra

Snehalkumar Pundalik Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamru Hanif Lala Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gufran Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alok Vibhuti Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra