Dismissed

Khalid Umar Mohammad Haneef v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Feb 2021ABA/24/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected due to serious allegations of rape and unnatural sex with corroborative evidence. While some facts were admitted, the court refused protection citing the gravity of the offence and lack of cordial relations. Interim bail was extended until February 26, 2021.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; interim protection extended until 26/02/2021.

Khalid Umar Mohammad Haneef Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

29-ABA-24-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2021

¶4

Khalid Umar Mohammad Haneef .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv, for the applicant. Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. N.R. Bubna, for Respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :16^th FEBRUARY 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

The Applicant is seeking Anticipatory Bail in connection with C.R. No. 460 of 2020, registered at Killa Police Station, Malegaon under Sections 376,377,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

The FIR is registered on the basis of the order passed by the learned JMFC under Sections 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the complaint made by the prosecutrix. The complaint was made under sections 376, 377, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. She has stated in her complaint

y.s.patil

1 of 5

29-ABA-24-2021.odt

that she was earlier married with the applicant. The applicant had divorced the informant on 08/11/2018. Since then the informant was staying separately with their 5 year old daughter. Inspite of this divorce, the applicant continued visiting the informant’s house. He continued sending obscene messages on her social networking account. On some occasions he demanded to have sexual intercourse but the informant had refused. On 30/11/2020, the applicant went to her house, he abused her and at the point of knife committed rape on her. There are allegations of commission of ofence involving unnatural sex. He threatened her and then left the place. The informant tried to give complaint to the police station but the ofcers of Killa Police Station, Malegaon did not record her FIR. Therefore she fled her private complaint.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the informant was in a habit of fling malicious proceedings against the applicant and his family. In the past she had fled proceedings under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. y.s.patil 2 of 5

¶15

29-ABA-24-2021.odt

¶16

as well as those under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He submitted that both these proceedings were settled in Lok-Nayalaya. Subsequently also she had fled one more complaint under Domestic Violence Act. In this background, the allegations in the FIR will have to be seen. The applicant had merely gone to the house of the informant to celebrate the birthday of their daughter. He further submitted that taking advantage of his visit to her house, she has made these false allegations. He submitted that the applicant has co-operated with the investigation and therefore his custodial interrogation is not necessary.

¶17

Shri Ajay Patil, learned APP submitted that there are statements of neighbours who had seen the applicant going to the house of the informant on that particular date. The ofence is serious.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the intervenor submitted that stand taken by the applicant shows that it is his case that it was consensual sex. This conduct of the applicant

y.s.patil

3 of 5

29-ABA-24-2021.odt

shows that inspite of the divorce he wanted to have physical relations with the informant. He submitted that looking at the past between the parties and also taking into account the previous and pending litigations, it was improbable that the informant would have consented to such relations. He submitted that considering the gravity of the ofence, applicant does not deserve any protection.

¶23

I have considered these submissions. Some facts are admitted. It is admitted that the applicant and the informant were earlier married. Subsequently in November 2018, the aplicant had divorced the informant. Even thereafter, he continued visiting the house of the informant. In between there were other proceedings initiated by the informant. On one occasion they were settled but again she fled complaint under Domestic Violence Act which is still pending. It shows that relations between them were not cordial at all.

¶24

In this view of the matter, it is difcult to accept theory of consensual physical relations. Statements given

y.s.patil

4 of 5

29-ABA-24-2021.odt

by neighbours show that the applicant had indeed visited the house of the informant on that particular day. Thus there is some corroboration to the informant’s case. In this view of the matter, since the ofence is serious and the allegations are serious, protection of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the applicant. Therefore, I am not inclined to protect him. The application is therefore rejected.

¶29

At this stage, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted his elder son is getting married on 24/02/2021. The applicant was earlier protected by an interim order dated 12/1/2021. He, therefore, prays that the protection may be extended till after the wedding of his son. Considering this submission, Interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 12/01/2021 is extended upto 26/02/2021.

¶30

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶32

y.s.patil

¶33

5 of 5

Khalid Umar Mohammad Haneef v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid Umar Mohammad Haneef 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

Kaif Afzal Sorathia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jakir Bandenawaj Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suhas Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Atikraman Mujesh Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Nirmalsing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Ursula Harry Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra