Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sufiyan Ali S/O. Taj Ali Bailim vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Arni, Dist. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3523 Bom

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3523 Bom
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2024

Bombay High Court

Sufiyan Ali S/O. Taj Ali Bailim vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Arni, Dist. ... on 6 February, 2024

2024:BHC-NAG:1588


                                                                               48.apeal.359.2023.judgment.odt
                                                              (1)

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

                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.359 OF 2023


                          Sufiyan Ali s/o Taj Ali Bailim,
                          Aged about 18 Years,
                          Occupation : Student,
                          R/o Amraipura, Arna,
                          Taluka Arni, District Yavatmal.                              ..... APPELLANT

                                                       // VERSUS //
                    1.    State of Maharashtra,
                          Through Police Station, Arni,
                          District Yavatmal.

                    2.    XYZ Victim,
                          In Crime No.1089/2022,
                          Registered at Police Station Arni,
                          District Yavatmal.                                       .... RESPONDENTS

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Mr. Taj M. Malnas, Advocate for appellant.
                           Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for respondent No.1/State.
                           Mr. J. V. Dhakate, Advocate h/f Mr. A. G. Hunge, appointed
                           Advocate for respondent No.2.
                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                  CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
                                                  DATED : 06.02.2024


                    ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order

passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the

48.apeal.359.2023.judgment.odt

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Case

No.19/2023 below Exhibit 16 dated 25.04.2023.

4. The appellant is arrested in connection with Crime No.

1089/2022 registered with Arni Police Station, District Yavatmal for

the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6, 11

and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

and under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of Scheduled

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

5. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by

father of the victim girl alleging that on 09.12.2022 he along with

other family members slept in his house. In the morning, he woke up

and saw that his daughter was not in the house. He searched for her

but could not trace her. He received the informant that his daughter

was kidnapped by the present appellant on the promise of marriage.

On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that

during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the

statement of the victim, who is aged about 17 years, who stated that

there was a love affair between the victim and the present appellant

and out of love affair, she joined the company of the appellant. It is

48.apeal.359.2023.judgment.odt

alleged that present appellant has subjected her for sexual assault

against her consent. On the basis of said report, police have

registered the crime under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that

from the statement of the victim, it reveals that out of love affair, she

has joined the company of the present appellant and there was a

physical relationship between them. Subsequently, she has changed

her version and attempted to state that she was forced for the sexual

assault, but this statement is recorded on 19.12.2022 i.e.

approximately after nine days of the incident. Now, the investigation

is completed and charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration of the

present appellant is not required. In view of that, he be released on

bail.

8. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the victim strongly

opposed the application on the ground that the victim at the time of

incident was 17 years of age. Her consent is not relevant. She was

subjected for the forceful sexual assault by the present appellant. If

he is released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence.

9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and

after going through the investigation papers, it reveals that victim has

left the house at her own and joined the company of the appellant.

48.apeal.359.2023.judgment.odt

Admittedly, at the time of incident she was 17 years of age, but it

reveals that out of a love affair, they come together and therefore,

there was a physical relationship between them. Now, the

investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Considering the

nature in which the alleged incident has taken place and now,

charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration of the present applicant is

not required. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed

by allowing this appeal.

10. The learned trial Court has not considered this aspect

while rejecting the application. In view of that, the order passed by

the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Court Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in Special Case No.19/2023 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is quashed and set aside.

(iii) The appellant Sufiyan Ali s/o Taj Ali Bailim be released on bail in connection with Crime No.1089/2022 registered with Arni Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of Scheduled

48.apeal.359.2023.judgment.odt

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

(iv) The appellant shall not enter into the vicinity of village Amboda, Taluka Arni, District Yavatmal, till culmination of the trial.

(v) The appellant shall attend the trial Court regularly without seeking any exemption unless there are exceptional circumstances.

(vi) The appellant shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the present case.

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

rules.

[

(URMIL A JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Sarkate.

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/02/2024 19:32:14

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter