Dismissed

Sangita @ Kajal Mukhtar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2024ABA/3091/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second anticipatory bail application under IPC and POCSO offences; applicant had earlier application dismissed and remained absconding for over five years. Court held successive applications were abuse of process and dismissed the application with costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; application dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Central Police Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Sangita @ Kajal Mukhtar Shaikh vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

907_Aba_3091_24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3091 OF 2024

¶5

Sangita @ Kajal Mukhtar Shaikh Vs.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Samay Pawar i/b Reena Prajapati for applicant Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State

¶9

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. By this application, applicant is seeking bail as she was apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 145 of 2019 dated 23.03.2019 registered at Manchar Police Station, District- Pune, for offences under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 363, 344, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 4, 6, 8, 10, 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

¶12

In this case, the victim girl could to be found and recovered only in the year 2023.

¶13

This very applicant had filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2053 of 2023 before this Court. It was dismissed by a speaking order by this Court (Coram: Amit Borkar, J.) on 21.07.2023.

¶14

Despite dismissal of the said anticipatory bail application filed earlier by this very applicant on 21.07.2023, the applicant remained absconding. In fact, charge-sheet filed in the present case on 15.07.2023 recorded the fact that the applicant was absconding.

¶15

In the face of said facts, filing of the present second anticipatory

¶16

1/3

¶17

907_Aba_3091_24.odt

¶18

bail application is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the case of G. R. Ananda Babu v/s. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (order dated 28^th January 2021 passed in Criminal Appeal, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 213 of 2021) the Supreme Court has observed as follows :

¶19

“ As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.”

¶20

Considering the fact that the applicant has remained absconding for more than 5 years and he is repeatedly filing anticipatory bail applications, demonstrating clear abuse of the process of law, the application deserves to be dismissed with appropriate costs.

¶21