The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application. The applicant was accused of molesting a minor student under IPC 354 and POCSO 2012. The court noted a handwriting match linking the accused to the incriminating note and granted no interim protection.
Application rejected; no interim order or extension granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 9-ABA No.601-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.601 OF 2019
Qureshi Ateeque Ahmed Mohd. Hasan ] … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ] … Respondent
Mr. Iqbal Shaikh Dawood, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent. PSI Milind Navgire attached to Azadnagar Police Station, Malegaon present.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 19th AUGUST, 2019.
P. C. :-
C.R.No.06/2019 registered with Azadnagar Police Station, District Nashik u/sec. 354, 354 (A), 354 (B) of I.P.C. and u/sec.11, 12 of The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
mentioned in the FIR that, in December 2018, the applicant gave a Purti Parab
1 of 4
2 9-ABA No.601-19.doc
chit to the victim and asked her to give reply to that chit. The victim refused to accept it. She returned the chit. After two weeks from there, the applicant again called the victim outside the classroom and gave one more chit. He told the victim that, if he she kept love relations with him, he would give good marks and that he would gift her clothes and would give anything she desired. The victim read the chit where some expression of love is mentioned. The victim immediately informed another teacher who was teaching English. That teacher assured that he would take action. However, no action was taken. Therefore, the victim told this to her father. Her father met the Chairman of the school. But even then, no action was taken against the applicant, therefore this FIR was lodged.
2 of 4
3 9-ABA No.601-19.doc
that, the applicant had attended the police station. Therefore, no purpose would be served by granting custodial interrogation.
Purti Parab
3 of 4
4 9-ABA No.601-19.doc
to protect the applicant. The prayer is rejected. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
Application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
4 of 4
Purti Parab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant involved in offences under IPC 354/354A/354B and POCSO 2012.
Whether the handwriting expert report sufficiently establishes the applicant's involvement.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Qureshi Ateeque Ahmed Mohd. Hasan
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
