Allowed

Umar Sharif Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Apr 2018BA/352/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under C.R.No.85 of 2016 regarding running a brothel and child sexual offences, the Court granted bail observing that the victims named the wife as the principal accused, not the applicant, despite his custody since 2016.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail with a bond of Rs.25,000/-, conditions to attend police station monthly, report changes, and undertake not to interfere with the case.

Umar Sharif Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

907-ba.352.2018.doc

1/5

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2018

¶6

Umar Sharif Shaikh ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

Mr.Fernandes Jude Sebastian Caitan, for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr.S.S.Hulke, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

¶9

PSI – Nilesh Dhonde, Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶11

DATE : 24^th APRIL, 2018

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

By this application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on

¶15

bail in connection with C.R.No.85 of 2016 registered with the Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 370(A)(1), 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

¶16

the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act) and under Sections

¶17

4, 8 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶18

907-ba.352.2018.doc

¶19

2/5

¶20

Perused the charge-sheet. According to the prosecution on 13^th

¶21

February, 2016, the Social Service Branch, received secret information,

¶22

that Femida Shaikh and Umar Shaikh (Applicant) were running a brothel in Shrikrishna Chawl, Room No.3, Kurla (West), Mumbai. Pursuant to the said information, the said premises was raided on 14^th February, 2016. The police had engaged a decoy customer, who rescued two girls, from the said premises. One of the two girls was major and the other a minor. On enquiry, it was revealed that the applicant, husband of Femida Shaikh, was running a brothel. The statements of the two victim girls, who were rescued, have been recorded, both under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is unfortunate that the minor victim girl was forced into prostitution, by her mother, for money. A perusal of the 164 statements of the two victim girls (one major and one minor) shows, that they had named co-accused-Femida Shaikh i.e. the applicant's wife and

¶23

have stated that Femida Shaikh would call them and ask them to come for

¶24

prostitution. None of the victim girls have disclosed the name of the present applicant or have alleged that the applicant induced them into prostitution. The applicant has no antecedents.

¶25

907-ba.352.2018.doc

¶26

3/5

¶27

Learned APP also does not dispute the fact, that the main allegations, (as per the victims' statements), are qua Femida Shaikh and not against the applicant. Learned APP also does not dispute the fact that the victim girls have not named the applicant. The applicant is in custody, since 2016. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed.

¶28

Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the

¶29

applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms and conditions:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more local solvent sureties in the like amount;

¶32

ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station, on the first Sunday of every month, between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., till the framing of the charge;

¶33

iii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and

¶34

mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change

¶35

907-ba.352.2018.doc

¶36

4/5

¶37

of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the trial Court

¶38

as well as to the concerned Police Station, in writing;

¶39

iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence/contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶40

v) The Applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial;

¶41

vi) An undertaking to the aforesaid clauses (ii) to (v), shall be filed by the Applicant, in the trial Court, within two week's of his release;

¶42

vii) If there are 2 consecutive defaults either in attending the Police

¶43

Station or in appearing before the trial Court, the prosecution will be at liberty to apply for cancellation of Applicant's bail.

¶44

The Application is allowed and disposed of in above terms.

¶45

907-ba.352.2018.doc

¶46

5/5

¶47

It is made clear, that the observations made herein are prima

¶48

facie and are confined to this application and the learned Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶49

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶50

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Umar Sharif Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umar Sharif Shaikh 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

Mohd. Shahbaz Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anis Munna Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Kalidas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj @ Surya Mahattam Mandal Vs the State of Maharasthra

Vijay Shankar Doke Vs Paromita Vijan Chakravarty and Anr.

Yunus Ismail Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.