Jamnalal S/O Devilal Gadwal vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6737 Bom

                          1/4                                 APEAL-43.21.odt-Judgment



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43                    OF 2021

 APPELLANT :-                      Jamnalal S/o Devilal Gadwal, Aged 54
                                   years, Occ. Private, R/o. Rani Society,
                                   Pardi Ekta Nagar, Nagpur.

                                      ...VERSUS...

 RESPONDENTS :-                 1. State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. PS
                                   Imamwada, Dist. Nagpur.

                                2. Usha Sunil Sahare, Aged 48 Years, Occ.
                                   Housewife, R/o, Pachnal Chowk, Police
                                   Station Imamwada, Nagpur.

                                3. Nikita Sonu Moon, Aged : 28 Years, Occ:
                                   Housewife, R/o: Rented in House
                                   Bhushan, Ashok Chowk, Behind NIT
                                   Garden, Sirespeth, Nagpur.
                                   (Victim) (Given as per page No.22)

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Mr. S. S. Sohoni, Advocate for the appellant.
                   Mr. T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for respondent No.1.
                       None for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 27.04.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)

1. Heard.

2. ADMIT.

 KHUNTE





                           2/4                         APEAL-43.21.odt-Judgment

3. This is an appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

challenging order dated 16/12/2020 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge-11, Nagpur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3390 of

2020 below Exhibit-1 in connection with Crime No.359 of 2020

registered with respondent No.1-Police Station for offences punishable

under sections 376, 370, 366 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC ST

Act").

4. The First Information Report came to be registered against

the appellant and others with accusations that daughter of the

complainant (victim) had called the complainant and told that the

appellant persuaded victim to accompany her at Rajasthan and sold

victim for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to a person in Rajasthan and

performed marriage with him. The said fact was informed to the

complainant by the victim by making telephone call.

5. The appellant, therefore, filed an application under section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in relation

to Crime No.359 of 2020 with Additional Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur.

The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order rejected application

of the appellant under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

 KHUNTE





                           3/4                       APEAL-43.21.odt-Judgment

The appellant has therefore, filed present appeal under section 14-A of

the SC ST Act.

6. This Court, on 21/01/2021 issued notice to the

respondents.

7. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant. It is

submitted that the victim is major and was having knowledge about the

acts done by her at Rajasthan. It is submitted that investigation is

complete and custodial interrogation is not necessary. Learned APP

submitted that the appellant is habitual offender and offence punishable

under sections 376, 366-A, 370, 370-A of the Indian Penal Code and

under the provisions of POCSO Act is pending against the appellant.

The appellant is released on bail in the said offence. It is submitted that

there is likelihood of tampering of evidence if the appellant is protected.

8. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First

Information Report. The learned APP has placed on record case diary.

We have also carefully considered the case diary. The case diary reflects

statements of victim and other witnesses. From the case diary, it

appears that there is prima facie material available against the

appellant. The appellant has criminal antecedents to his discredit for

the offences punishable under sections 376, 366-A, 370, 370-A of the

Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of POCSO Act. The

KHUNTE

4/4 APEAL-43.21.odt-Judgment

allegation against the appellant is of immoral trafficking. Immoral

trafficking is now wide spread. Victims who are lured, forced or

threatened for the purpose of bringing them to the trade should be

given all protection. We, at this stage, cannot enter into details in

regards merit of the matter so as to prejudice the case of one party or

the other at the trial. But it is now well settled principle of law that

while granting anticipatory bail, the Court must record the reasons

therefor. There is no allegation that the victim had any animosity

against the appellant. There is no reason for the victim to falsely

implicate the appellant. The prosecution has alleged the victim was sold

to a person at Rajasthan, which prima facie finds corroboration from the

testimony of witnesses and thus, we can safely arrive at conclusion that

at this stage, evidence of victim and other witnesses should not be

rejected out rightly.

9. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons

for rejecting anticipatory bail of the appellant. The criminal

antecedents of the appellant is the factor which rightly weighed the

learned Sessions Judge. The allegations against the appellant are

serious, therefore, we are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge has

rightly rejected anticipatory bail application of the appellant. There is

no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

                  (AMIT B. BORKAR, J)                          (Z.A.HAQ, J)


 KHUNTE