Allowed

Sandeep Kumar @ Nikhil Arora S/O Ramesh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 May 2024ABA/1289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought anticipatory bail in a molestation case under Sections 354, 506, 34 IPC. The court noted an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, that the informant's earlier notice did not mention the incident, and that the investigation stood concluded with nothing to be recovered. Anticipatory bail was allowed subject to conditions including a PR bond and non-tampering undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: release on PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with like sureties on arrest in CR No.200/2024, subject to attendance and non-tampering conditions.

Sandeep Kumar @ Nikhil Arora S/O Ramesh Kumar and Anr. vs… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Chitra Sonawane 10-aba-1289-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Anticipatory Bail Application No.1289 of 2024

¶4

Sandeep Kumar alias Nikhil Arora a/o Ramesh Kumar Age 30 years, Occ: Production Manager, Add:B-1601, Jivan Jyoti Building, Near: Deepak Hospital, Mira Road West 401107

¶5

Puneet Goyal s/o Govind Goyal Age-38 years, Occ:Director, Add:5-D/302, Sankalp building, Ekta Nagar, Charkop, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400 067. …... Applicants. Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Malwani Police Station)

¶7

X.Y.Z. Aged 21 years (through Malvani Police Station) ..…. Respondents.

¶8

Ms Sana Latif Shaikh i/by Shaikh Abdul Kalam for the applicant.

¶9

Mr Arfan Sait, APP for respondent/State. Mr Anurag Mishra for respondent No.2.

¶10

API Nilesh Salunke, Malvani Police Station, Mumbai.

¶11

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 10 December 2024.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

10 December 2024.

¶14

Chitra Sonawane 10-aba-1289-2024.doc

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant apprehending arrest in CR No.200 of 2024, registered at Malwani Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the alleged incident occurred on 4 January 2024, but was only reported to the police on 11 February 2024. This delay in lodging the FIR is significant and unexplained. The learned Counsel emphasise that the notice dated 1 February 2024, issued by the informant, does not reference the alleged incident. According to the learned Counsel, the investigation has been concluded, and there is nothing to be recovered at the instance of the applicant.

¶18

On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State and the learned Counsel for the intervenor, jointly submits that the offence is serious and involves allegations of molestation against the applicant. The learned APP, however, fairly acknowledges that the investigation is concluded, and

¶19

Page 2 of 4 ______________________________________________________ 10 December 2024.

¶20

Chitra Sonawane 10-aba-1289-2024.doc

¶21

nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.

¶22

After perusing the records, it is evident that the alleged incident occurred on 4 January 2024, but the FIR was lodged only on 11 February 2024. The delay in filing the FIR remains unexplained. Furthermore, the notice dated 1 February 2024, issued by the informant, does not mention the alleged incident. The investigation has been concluded and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant. The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant may tamper with prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. In these circumstances, the application stands allowed in the following terms :

¶23

(i) In the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with CR No.200 of 2024, registered at Malwani Police Station, Mumbai, he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when

¶25

Page 3 of 4 ______________________________________________________ 10 December 2024.

¶26

Chitra Sonawane 10-aba-1289-2024.doc

¶27

required.

¶28

(iii) The applicant, himself or through any other person, shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

¶29

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

[ R. N. Laddha,J. ]

¶31

Page 4 of 4

¶32

10 December 2024.

Sandeep Kumar @ Nikhil Arora S/O Ramesh Kumar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar @ Nikhil Arora S/O Ramesh Kumar and Anr. v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Ami Housing Ltd. Vs Urmila Mahesh Chauhan and Others

M/S. Ami Housing Ltd. Vs Urmila Mahesh Chauhan

Lekhraj T. Bhojwani Vs Deputy Registrar of Companies and Anr.

Nadim Soratiya Alias Nadim Batla Vs State of Maharashtra

Ivory Tower Co-Operative Housing Society Limited the. Mr. Jayesh Shah(Chairman) Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr.Designated Officer G-South Ward

M/S Golden Realty Vs Ansari Hifzur Rehman Abdul Hamid