Disposed¶22

Mohd Shoyeb Abdul Hamid v. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Khallar

Bombay HC23 Sept 2025APEAL/229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail confirmation; POCSO Act Section 12 - no offence made out; SC/ST Atrocities Act Section 3(1)(w)(i) - not attracted, no caste utterance; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 74, 78; mobile handset in hand not sexual assault/harassment intent; no sexual intention in FIR; Crime No. 63/2025 P.S. Khallar District Amravati; 17-year-old victim; deaf and dumb plea; family enmity; NC dated 16.04.2025; chargesheet filed; interim protection of 29.04.2025 confirmed on same terms; Nagpur Bench; single judge Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of the ad interim anticipatory bail protection granted on 29.04.2025 on the same terms and conditions; Criminal Appeal and pending applications disposed of; fees of the appointed Counsel to be quantified as per Rules. ¶22

Mohd Shoyeb Abdul Hamid Vs State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad interim anticipatory bail protection granted to the appellant on 29.04.2025 should be confirmed. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

The interim protection granted by this Court on 29.04.2025 stands confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Considering the allegations in the First Information Report, no sexual intention existed; merely putting a mobile handset in someone's hand cannot be considered an intention of sexual assault or harassment.

¶8

Key takeaways

No offence is made out under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.ratio¶21
Since there is no utterance of words about caste, the offence under the Atrocities Act will not be attracted.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.), 23.09.2025, Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2025 (Mohd. Shoyeb s/o. Abdul Hamid v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.). Appellant apprehended arrest in Crime No.63/2025, P.S. Khallar, District Amravati, for offences under Sections 74, 78 BNS 2023, Section 12 POCSO Act 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. FIR alleges that on 25.03.2025 the appellant approached the 17-year-old victim returning from her typing class and put his mobile handset in her hand asking her to dial her number. Held: on the FIR allegations themselves no sexual intention existed; merely putting a mobile handset in someone's hand cannot be considered an intention of sexual assault or harassment, and no offence under the POCSO Act is made out; there being no utterance of words about caste, the offence under the Atrocities Act is not attracted. The interim anticipatory bail protection granted on 29.04.2025 was confirmed on the same terms and conditions and the Criminal Appeal was disposed of. Chargesheet had been filed; an NC was registered on 16.04.2025 after the FIR.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9634

¶2

1 41.appeal.229.25

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2025

¶5

Mohd. Shoyeb s/o. Abdul Hamid Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Mr. D. S. Khushalani, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Anant Ghogare, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. Mr. V. V. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,J. DATED : 23/09/2025.

¶11

. The appellant is apprehending the arrest in connection with Crime No.63/2025 registered at Police Station Khallar, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶12

It is alleged that on 25.03.2025 the victim, who is 17 years of age was returning from her typing class by bicycle, at that time, the appellant approached her and put his mobile handset in her hand and asked her to dial her number from his mobile. At that time, her uncle and his friend came from front side and asked her what happened. She narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, the crime is registered.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is protected by this Court by granting ad interim anticipatory bail.

¶14

2 41.appeal.229.25

¶15

The allegations itself shows that there was no any sexual intention. The applicant is deaf and dumb. Only because of enmity between the two families, the crime is registered against this person. The NC is also lodged after filing of the First Information Report. The learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed out that there is no question of flouting the conditions of the bail as the NC was registered on 16.04.2025 and this Court has granted interim protection on 29.04.2025. The bail was rejected by the Trial Court on 23.04.2024, therefore, there is no question of any threats given by the applicant and his family members after granting the interim protection. Hence, prayed to confirm the protection granted by this Court.

¶16

The learned A.P.P. has stated that the chargesheet is filed. Considering the allegations, the application be rejected.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the victim has stated that the family members of the applicant are giving threats. The NC is registered. The appellant and the victim are residing in the same village. The appellant is not deaf and dumb. He is having some difficulty in speaking. Therefore, prayed to reject the application.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel for the respective.

¶19

Considering the allegations made in the First Information Report itself shows that no sexual intention was there. The learned Counsel for the victim has stated that the appellant is deaf and dumb. Merely putting a Mobile handset in someone’s hand cannot be considered as

¶20

3 41.appeal.229.25

¶21

an intention of the sexual assault or harassment. No offence is made out under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. There is no utterance of the words about the caste, therefore, the offence under the Atrocities Act will not be attracted. Hence, the interim protection granted by this Court on 29.04.2025 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

¶22

The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶24

The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per Rules.

¶25

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

RGurnule

Mohd Shoyeb Abdul Hamid v. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Khallar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shoyeb Abdul Hamid v. State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Khallar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aniket S/O Kisan Sahare Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Gadge Nagar, Dist. Amravati and Anr.

Abhay S/O Madanrao Tekale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Chikhali, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana

Tahemin a. Firoz Sidhiki Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Mohadi Tahsil Mohadi Dist Bhandara

Parimal S/O Chandrashekhar Kotpalliwar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Lakadganj, Nagpur

Parimal S/O Chandrashekhar Kotpalliwar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Lakadganj, Nagpur

Niranjan @ Ranjan S/O Namdeo Mesare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Shivaji Nagar Ps Khamgaon Dist Buldhana and Anr.