BA 147­22
:
1:
Dt. 15.02.2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSION AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 147 OF 2022
(CNR NO. MHCC02­000745­2022)
Mr. Anandkumar Nagarajan
) … Applicant / Accused No.11
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through V.P. Road Police Station)
)
) … Respondent
Ld. Adv. Kailash Nath Maurya for Applicant /Accused.
Ld. APP. Kalpana Hire for State / Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO. 39)
DATED : 15.02.2022.
ORDER
This is application for bail u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No. 3
of 2022 registered with V.P. Road Police Station for the offences
punishable u/s. 363, 370 (4) r/w of I.P.C. and under Sections 81, 87 of
Juvenile Justice Act.
2.

As per FIR, one Sangeeta Choubey started residing in the
house of complainant on rent. She also promised to offer more amount
to the complainant for looking after her daughter aged 2 months.
Therefore, the complainant allowed Sangeeta Choubey to reside with
her on rent. The said Sangeeta Choubey was doing the prostitution. It
is alleged that one Mr. Ibrahim was visiting the residence of
complainant to meet Sangeeta Choubey. It is alleged that on
BA 147­22
:
2:
Dt. 15.02.2022
01.12.2021 the Sangeeta Choubey went for work. However, she had not
returned home. Therefore, the responsibility of her baby girl aged
4 months was on complainant. Even in absence of Sangeeta Choubey
Ibrahim used to visit house of the complainant to see the daughter of
Sangeeta Choubey. So also, he used to look after said child in absence
of the complainant.
3.

It is alleged that on 27.12.2021 Ibrahim took the daughter
of Sangeeta Choubey under the pretext that he will take her for Polio
dose. However, Ibrahim not returned home with the daughter of
Sangeeta Choubey. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint
against Ibrahim for kidnapping the daughter of Sangeeta Choubey. On
inquiry, the Accused Ibrahim disclosed that he sold the daughter of
Sangeeta Choubey for money. Therefore, relevant Sections came to be
added. During course of investigation, it revealed that the Accused
Ibrahim and co­accused sold the said girl for Rs. 1,80,000/­ at
Tamilnadu and handed over to Applicant. It is alleged that the main
Accused Laxmi Murgesh co­ordinated the said transaction and prepared
a plan to reach upto the Applicant who purchased the said child by
giving money without following proper procedure of adoption and
without verifying parents of said child.
4.

The Applicant / Accused claims bail on the ground that he
is falsely implicated in the present offence. He submitted that one
Vijaykumar and Dr. Jaykumar misrepresented him that Mrs. Tahira @
Reshma is the biological mother of minor child and she was ready to
give the minor child in adoption through her free consent. It is
submitted that the Applicant is married prior 15 years. However, he is
not having any child in spite of various treatment taken by his wife. It
BA 147­22
:
3:
Dt. 15.02.2022
is submitted that the co­accused represented that they are running a
Trust for welfare of people and he can adopt the child by paying
donations. Therefore, the Applicant donated Rs. 4,80,000/­ to the said
Trust. It is submitted that the Applicant is Civil Engineer by profession
and belongs to decent family. Therefore, Applicant prayed for release
on bail.
5.

The Prosecution has raised objection to grant bail by filing
Say. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the investigation is
in progress. There is racket who are involved in kidnapping the minor
children and selling them for money. The co­accused is yet to be
arrested. Therefore, if the Accused is granted bail, then there will be
every possibility that Accused will tamper with the prosecution
evidence. So also, there is every possibility that he will threaten the
prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution strongly objected for
release of Accused on bail.
6.

After going through the Prosecution case and argument
advanced it appears that the co­accused Ibrahim sold the 4 months
daughter of Sangeeta Choubey by kidnapping her from the lawful
custody of complainant. Thereafter, the co­accused prepared the false
documents and sold it to the Applicant. The Applicant claims that he is
Engineer. However, in spite of the same, he tried to secure the child
without following the proper procedure for adoption. Moreover, he had
not verified about the parents of the child and the Birth Certificate.
Therefore, he is equally responsible for the offence alongwith
co­accused. It appears that the co­accused are involved in such type of
trafficking of child. The offence is serious in nature. The investigation is
in progress. Therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to
BA 147­22
:
4:
Dt. 15.02.2022
the Accused. Hence, I proceed to pass following Order :­
ORDER
The Bail Application No. 147 of 2022 stands rejected.

(SANJASHREE J. GHARAT)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Greater Bombay
Date :­ 15.02.2022.
Dictation Typed on
Checked & Signed on
:
:
15.02.2022.
18.02.2022.

BA 147­22
:
5:
Dt. 15.02.2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
18.02.2022 at 5.55 pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
room no.)
(C.R. NO. 39)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
of 15.02.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 18.02.2022
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
18.02.2022