Bombay High Court
Farzana @ Anjum Ansar Qureshi vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps ... on 27 November, 2025
1 ba905.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.905/2025
(Farzana @ Anjum Ansar Qureshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station
Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ujjawal Phasate, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 27.11.2025.
The applicant is arrested in Crime No.42/2023 for the offence
punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
75 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
2. The Assistant Police Sub-Inspector Ajay Gajre has received the
information that during the remand of accused in Crime No.639/2022
Yogeshkumar Prajapati informed the police that in the month of July
2022 his wife Rita Prajapati delivered 5 th child at General Hospital,
Wardha. As the couple was poor and already had 4 children,
co-accused with the help of the present applicant sold said daughter
to one Sweety Gajbhiye for consideration of Rs.60,000/-. On the
basis of the report, crime is registered against this applicant.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant is praying for bail on the ground of delay in trial and also on
merits. The applicant is in jail since 2.2.2023. There is no progress in
trial and on merits the offence under Section 370 of I.P.C. cannot be
attracted against this applicant as there is no trafficking. The
definition of exploitation is not applicable in this case and, therefore,
the offence under Section 370 of I.P.C. would not be attracted. The
2 ba905.2025.odt
statement of the witness shows that she has adopted the child and has
given Rs.50,000/- for expenses of the other children of the couple
and, therefore, there is no trafficking. As the offence under Section
370 of I.P.C. would not be attracted and there is delay in trial, prayed
to release the applicant on bail.
4. The applicant has relied on the judgment of this Court in
Criminal Application (BA) No.872/2025 (Munnibai @ Chhunibai
Dwarkaprasad Lilhare V/s. The State of Maharashtra) wherein this
Court has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Surendra V/s. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal arising
out SLP [Criminal] No.5139/2025) and Satendra Kumar Antil V/s.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and
granted bail to said Munnibai. He has also relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh V/s.
State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2024 DGLS (SC) 668
wherein in para 19 following observations are made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court:-
"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect
the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial
as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the
State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose
the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is
serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of
the nature of the crime."
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Advocate for the
applicant prayed to release the applicant on bail.
6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the
applicant has given child on exchange of money. It was not adoption.
The legal procedure for adoption is not followed. There is a
3 ba905.2025.odt
transaction of sale and purchase. It attracts the provisions of
trafficking. Against other co-accused MCOC Act is registered.
Therefore, there is delay in trial. Considering the gravity of the
offence, prayed to reject the application.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. On perusal of the statement made by the witness, who has
taken the child in presence of this applicant, that she has given the
child to the couple for the expenses of the 4 children of the couple.
The couple has given the child to the witness as they were already
having 4 children and has delivered 5th baby. The witness was not
having any child and, therefore, she has taken it in adoption.
Considering the statement made by the witness, it appears that there
is a monetary transaction but the witness has stated that she has
given the amount to this applicant not for adopting the child but for
the welfare of the siblings of the child to whom she has adopted.
9. The applicant is in jail since 2.2.2023. The status report was
called. On perusal of the status report it appears that yet the charge is
not framed.
10. Considering the observations made in the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra) it
is necessary to initiate the trial. It is the fundamental right of an
accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. If there is a delay because of the prosecuting
agency bail cannot be opposed. Though the learned A.P.P. has stated
about the registration of MCOC Act it is not against this applicant
which is against co-accused in the other cases. Considering the stage
of trial which is yet to be initiated and the applicant is in jail since
about 3 years, case is made out to release the applicant on bail.
4 ba905.2025.odt
11. The Criminal application is allowed.
(i) Applicant - Farzana @ Anjum Ansar Qureshi be released on
bail Crime No.42/2023 for the offence punishable under Section
370 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 75 and 81 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, on her furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with solvent surety in
the like amount before the trial Court.
(ii) The applicant shall not in any way tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize or threaten the prosecution
witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall co-operate the learned trial Judge in the
conduct of the trial.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/11/2025 19:08:33
