::1::
Criminal Bail Application No.214/2022
CNR NO. MHCC02-001067-2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 214 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO. 778 OF 2021
Akmal Anwar Sidiqque
Age : Adult, Occupation-Nil,
213, Chhote Gaazipur, Harijan Basti,
Gorakhpur, U.P. 273 001
…Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Parksite Police Station)
…Respondent
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Wahab Shaikh for the applicant/Accused.
APP Mrs. Meera Choudhary-Bhosale for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H.THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SONALI P. AGARWAL (C.R. NO. 41)
DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2022.
:ORDER:
This is an bail application filed by accused under section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for
::2::
Criminal Bail Application No.214/2022
grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.778/2021 for the offence
punishable under Sections 354(A) and 376(2)(n)(f) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) registered with Parksite
Police Station.
2.

Heard argument of learned counsel for accused and learned APP for
the State.
3.

Prosecution has alleged that accused is step-father of informant. It is
alleged that in September 2021, he committed rape on her. But as she was
scared and due to fear of defamation she did not inform anybody about the
same. It is further alleged that accused again in the same month
committed rape on her and also compelled her to do oral sex. It is further
alleged that informant’s brother took accused’s mobile phone for his online
classes and in phone gallery he found video of sexual relations between
informant and accused and therefore, informant came to know that
accused has made such video and then FIR came to be lodged.
4.

Applicant-accused has contended that he and informant had love
relationship and it was consensual one. He has further stated that he is not
having criminal antecedents and prayed to be released on bail.
5.

Prosecution has stated that accused is step-father of informant and if
he is released on bail then he may repeat the offence. Prosecution has
further stated that accused had absconded to U.P. after commission of
crime. Prosecution has further stated that if accused is released on bail he
may abscond and objected the bail application.

::3::
6.

Criminal Bail Application No.214/2022
Learned counsel for accused has cited judgment of the Hon’ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh in case of Union Territory,
Chandigarh Vs. Amit Kumar @ Rachu and others in CRM-A No.1887-MA of
2017 (O & M), decided on 16.10.2019, in which it is held that, “Medical
examination has also highlighted that there was no injury on any part of
the prosecutrix. Medical Expert PW-5 (Dr. Parijat) has stated that there
was chances of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In crossexamination, this Medical Expert has testified that no injury on the private
part of the prosecutrix was noticed. Meaning thereby, the doctor did not
find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix, from which, it can be
inferred that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. There is
no corroborative evidence to the testimony of the prosecutrix that she was
victim of rape. Her testimony had not stood the test of credence and in
these circumstances, we inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the
respondents. The statement of other witnesses is formal in nature. The
contradictions, as observed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment,
are itself sufficient to discard the case of prosecution in toto.” In the case
in hand yet evidence is not recorded but FIR is filed by daughter stating
that her step-father committed rape on her. Therefore, merely because in
the Medical Certificate there is no reference of injuries at this stage when
evidence is not recorded, a jumping conclusion cannot be drawn that
accused has not committed rape. Therefore, this case law is not applicable
to this case at this stage.
7.

Learned counsel for accused has cited Order of the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court in case of Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane Vs. The State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.27 of 2014 with
::4::
Criminal Bail Application No.214/2022
Criminal Intervention Application No.179 of 2014, decided on 12 th March,
2014, in which it is held that, “Prima facie it does not appear from the
record that the complainant was either forced to keep sexual relationship
or she was really induced to such an extent that she has no other option
but to keep physical relationship with the applicant/accused. Even though
if at all there is bonafide promise to marry and the girl chooses to keep
physical relationship with that persons and if a boy withdraws his promise,
as they are not psychologically comfortable with each other, then it cannot
bring that particular act within the purport of offence under section 375 of
IPC. The complainant is an educated girl and it shows that it was her
conscious decision to keep sexual relations with him. Prima facie at this
stage, possibility of non-committal, consensual relationship cannot be
denied.” In the case in hand it is alleged that step-father committed rape
on his daughter and also made video of such sexual relations and FIR is
lodged by daughter herself. Therefore, at this stage, there are no sufficient
circumstances to come to conclusion that daughter kept sexual relations
with her step-father with her own wish. Therefore, this case law is not
applicable to the case in hand.
8.

Learned counsel for accused has contended that accused was staying
with mother of informant. Prosecution has contended that informant’s
mother and her first husband had taken divorce before 10 years and
informant’s mother and accused did love marriage before four years and
accused was staying with them. But learned counsel for accused without
taking such ground in writing in bail application has argued that accused
had not married informant’s mother and he is a mere relative. He has
argued that accused is not step-father of informant. But at this juncture,
::5::
Criminal Bail Application No.214/2022
considering the statement of witnesses recorded such oral argument of
learned counsel for accused is not reliable.
9.

As discussed above, prosecution has alleged that accused is step-
father who committed rape on informant twice and prepared video of such
sexual relations. It is a very serious offence. In such circumstances if
accused is released on bail, then there is every possibility that he will
threaten informant i.e. his step-daughter and witnesses and he may
abscond also. Hence, there are no reasonable grounds to allow this bail
application. Hence, pass following order:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.214 of 2022 is rejected.

2.

Criminal Bail Application No.214 of 2022 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Dt. 18.02.2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(SONALI P. AGARWAL)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Bombay
: 18.02.2022
: 18.02.2022
: 18.02.2022
::6::
Criminal Bail Application No.214/2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
22/02/2022 at 3.01 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Sonali P. Agarwal
Room No.
Room No.41)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 18/02/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O.on
18/02/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
22/02/2022
(Court