The applicant sought anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 376, 328, and 506 IPC involving alleged drugging and sexual assault. The Court held that allegations were grave, custody was necessary for investigating drug administration and recovering devices, and the application was rejected.
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.
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAYSONAWANE SANJAYSONAWANE Date:2024.07.06 18:13:47+0530 28-aba-1663-2024.doc
Chitra Sonawane.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1663 of 2024
Samarth Praful Bhaindarkar Age 44 years, Occ. Business, R/at. Building No.6, A/23, Balaji Building, Linking Road, Opp. Oshiwara Bus Depot, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 400 104.
... Applicant
Versus
Mr NU Khan a/w. Mr Arshad Qureshi a/w. Mr Sameer Shariff a/w. Ms Sheeba Khan, for the applicant. Ms Rajeshree Newton, APP for the respondent/ State. PSI Sawant, Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai, is present.
Coram: RN Laddha, J. Date: 4 July 2024
P.C.
By the present application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest
Page 1 of 4
__________________________ 4 July 2024
Chitra Sonawane.
28-aba-1663-2024.doc
bail in connection with CR No.352 of 2024, registered at Goregoan Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 328 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 2 of 4
__________________________ 4 July 2024
Chitra Sonawane.
28-aba-1663-2024.doc
has no criminal antecedents, and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is unnecessary. Further, Mr Khan, the learned Counsel, to support his contentions, relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan1 .
Page 3 of 4
__________________________ 4 July 2024
Chitra Sonawane.
28-aba-1663-2024.doc
and the informant were acquainted and had amicable relations. The allegations against the applicant involve administering a drug to the informant in a cold drink without her knowledge, rendering her unconscious and without her consent and knowledge committing sexual intercourse. After the informant regained consciousness, the applicant allegedly blackmailed her, threatening to share indecent photographs and videos on social media. Furthermore, the applicant borrowed money from the informant on the pretext of supporting his business. The allegations are grave and serious. The investigation is at a nascent stage, and details regarding the drug’s administration and its procurement remain undiscovered. Additionally, the alleged devices used to record the informant and store the indecent footage are yet to be recovered. Given these circumstances, the applicant’s custody is deemed necessary. The case cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant does not apply to the specific facts of this case. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. As such, the application stands rejected.
[ RN Laddha, J. ]
Page 4 of 4
4 July 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the circumstances justify the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ansaar Mohammad v. State of RajasthanReferred¶29
2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samarth Praful Bhaindarkar
The State of Maharashtra
Miss XYZ
RN Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
