Mohammed Akhtar Hussain Shaikh @ Akhtar Chacha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

1-Aba-2110-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2110 OF 2021

Mohammed Akhtar Hussain Shaikh
@ Akhtar Chacha… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶7

2. Mushtaque Ali Shaikh … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Satyaram R. Gaud i/by Mr. Osama A. Menon, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶9

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 20h SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

1.The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 1139
of 2021 registered with Malvani Police Station on 6th August, 2021
for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 506(2), r/w Section
34, 111, 114, 116, 3 & 4 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and
Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶13

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2021.09.22 10:44:28 +0530

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the victim in this
case are girls aged about 15 years & 7 months and 19 years. Both

¶15

1 of 6

¶16

Sajakali Jamadar

¶17

1-Aba-2110-2021.doc

¶18

are sisters. The elder sister was in need of job and she had
appraised about it to accused Zaid. On 5th August, 2021 Zaid called
the elder sister and told her to come with younger sister at
Malwani. Both the victim reached the spot. They met Zaid, Rahil
and two other persons namely Pawan Singh and Rizwan. Rahil told
the victim that Mushtaque has taken possession of plot of Omji
Kumawat and Akhtar Chacha (applicant). They were instructed to
lodge false complaint against Mushtaque alleging that he had
sexually assaulted the minor victim. They were offered the amount
of Rs.50,000/- and advance amount of Rs.25,000/- was handed
over to them. Since they refused the offer, they were threatened by
the accused of dire consequences. While on the way to the Police
Station both the victim decided not to accede to the demand of the
accused instead they decided to lodge complaint. The First
Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was lodged by the Police Sub
Inspector attached to Malwani Police Station. Apparently during
the course of investigation, statement of the girls were recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

3.The applicant had preferred an application for
anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions which has been
rejected.

¶20

2 of 6

¶21

Sajakali Jamadar

¶22

1-Aba-2110-2021.doc

¶23

4.Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of
business rivalry. Mushtaque had purchased building material from
the applicant and dues to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- were paid by
him. Since the applicant had demanded the said amount he has
been falsely implicated at the instance of Mushtaque. Reliance is
placed on the invoice about sale of building material. The applicant
is 74 year old person. He was undergoing medical treatment. On
the day of the alleged incident he was taking treatment. Reliance is
place on the screen shots of the video.

¶24

5.Learned APP submitted that the applicant is involved
in the offence. FIR mentions that the victim girls were induced to
lodge false complaint against Mushtaque due to take over the
possessions of plot of land which was in the possession of
Mushtaque. Statements of victim girls were recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. The said statements were produced for perusal of the
Court. The applicant is involved in C.R. No.1157 of 2021 and the
Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Mumbai has
granted prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act for
invoking the provisions of the said Act.

¶25

6.In rejoinder learned counsel for the applicant

¶26

3 of 6

¶27

Sajakali Jamadar

¶28

1-Aba-2110-2021.doc

¶29

submitted that there is no cogent evidence to show his involvement
in C.R. No.1157 of 2021. The applicant is old man undergoing
treatment. He pointed out the medical case papers about treatment
of the applicant.

¶30

7.The FIR proceeds on the basis that the victims were
induced by offering amount of Rs.50,000/- to falsely implicate
Mushtaque, who was purportedly in possession of plot in which the
applicant and another person Omji Kumawat were having interest.
The FIR was registered by the Police Sub Inspector. According to
him he received information that the victims have visited Police
Station for lodging complaint. He stated that the victims were
called by Zaid and they were made the aforesaid offer. They were
threatened. The motive of the crime was that the applicant and
Mr. Kumawat to take over the possession of the plot from
Mushtaque. The victim girls decided not to falsely implicate
Mushtaque and narrated the incident. The offence under Section
22 of POCSO Act is punishable with imprisonment to one year.
Section 506(2) pertains to non bailable offence. The threats were
issued by the co-accused Rizwan, who has been arrested and he
was produced for remanding on 6th August, 2021.

¶31

8.The statements of the victim girls were recorded under

¶32

4 of 6

¶33

Sajakali Jamadar

¶34

1-Aba-2110-2021.doc

¶35

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 6th August, 2021. The statement of one of
the girl, who was major mentions that Rahil has told her that there
is dispute between him and Mushtaque on account of landed
property and hence false complaint is to be lodged against him.
They were instructed to lodge the complaint of sexual assault.
However, they informed to police that such incident had not
occurred and they had decided to lodge complaint. The statement
of minor victim also do not referred to name of the applicant or
that she was instructed by Rahil to falsely implicate Mushtaque on
behalf of the applicant. The motive attributed by the major girl is
completely contradictory to FIR. The invocation of provisions of
MCOC is independent of this case. The applicant is aged about 74
years. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects custodial
interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

¶36

9. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2110 of 2021 is
allowed;

¶39

(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection
with C.R. No. 1139 of 2021 registered with Malvani Police
Station, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P. R.
Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in
the like amount;

¶40

5 of 6

¶41

Sajakali Jamadar

¶42

1-Aba-2110-2021.doc

¶43

(iii) The applicant shall attend the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶44

(iv) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶46

6 of 6

¶47

Sajakali Jamadar

Mohammed Akhtar Hussain Shaikh @ Akhtar Chacha v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Akhtar Hussain Shaikh @ Akhtar Chacha v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhaya Dharmaraj Pacharne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratik S/O Mukesh Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iqra Adil Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Sukhdev Vairal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eric Johny Chambakkaw Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Janardhan Singh Prop. of Sai Indra Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra