Allowed

Heenakausar Maulali Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2024ABA/1147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant accused of facilitating her brother's sexual exploitation of a minor victim girl sought anticipatory bail. Having earlier received interim protection and having cooperated with the investigation, the court confirmed the interim order and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection from arrest dated 31.08.2023 confirmed; anticipatory bail application allowed; applicant to cooperate with the Court for expeditious completion of trial.

Heenakausar Maulali Shaikh vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

506_ABA1147_24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1147 OF 2024

¶4

Heenakausar Maulali Shaikh … Applicant Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Kamran S. Shaikh a/w. Mr. Ritesh M. Thobde for Applicant. Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for Respondent-State. None for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Bajoria, learned APP have pointed out that initially the present application was filed as an appeal under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, wherein, by an order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse, JJ.), interim protection from arrest was granted to the applicant, subject to the conditions specified in the said order. Subsequently, the appeal was permitted to be converted into an anticipatory bail application and the interim order was continued by this Court (Coram : M. S. Karnik, J.) for a period of four weeks by order dated 22.03.2024.

¶10

The interim order may not have continued beyond four weeks from 22.03.2024, but the learned APP informs this Court that in terms of the conditions imposed upon the applicant, she had co-operated with the investigation.

¶11

This Court has considered the material on record. The allegation against the applicant is that, her brother i.e. the main accused person had

¶12

MINAL Digitally signed byMINAL SANDIP SANDIPPARAB PARABDate: 2024.09.0311:14:49 +0530

1/2

506_ABA1147_24.doc

Minal Parab

brought the minor victim girl to the house of the applicant where the coaccused person i.e. her brother had allegedly sexually exploited the minor victim.

¶17

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and in the backdrop of the fact that the applicant was granted interim relief by an order dated 31.08.2023, as also the fact that the applicant has co-operated with the investigation, this Court is inclined to allow this application. Hence, the interim order dated 31.08.2023 is confirmed and the application is allowed.

¶18

The applicant shall co-operate with the concerned Court for expeditious completion of the trial.

¶19

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶20

2/2

Heenakausar Maulali Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heenakausar Maulali Shaikh v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jabbir Jamil Ahmed Siddiqui vs State of Maharashtra

Chinmayee Pendse D/O Madan Gopal Pendse through Poa Surdarshan Sengupta Vs Subhendra Taraknath Sengupta (Deceased)

Chandrabala Alias Minaxi Manharlal and 4 Ors. Vs Manharlal Manilal Mehta Alias M.M. Mehta Alias Maharlal M Mehta (Deceased)

Sagar Bapuso Nichite vs State of Maharashtra

Babu Jethalal Patel vs State of Maharashtra

Swadeshi Mills Company Limited Vs B. I. F. R.