Cri.Bail Application No.288/2024
..1..
MHCC020019882024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.288 OF 2024
(CNR NO.MHCC02-001988-2024)
IN
C.R.NO.48 OF 2024
1. Mrs. Tabassum Suraj Sawant
Aged-Not mentioned, An Adult,
Mumbai Inhabitant.
2. Mrs. Pinky Vivek Jadhav
Aged-Not mentioned, An Adult,
Mumbai Inhabitant.
3. Mr. Rahul Ramesh Dhanave
Aged-Not mentioned, An Adult,
Mumbai Inhabitant.
All residing at Chawl near Shiv
Sena Office, Ashok Nagar,
Vashi Naka, Chembur, Mumbai 400 074.
..Applicants/Accused
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
Through R.C.F. Police Station.
..Respondent
Appearances :Ld. Advocate Ms. Chitra Salunke, for the Accused.
Ld. Addl. P.P. Mrs. Rajlaxmi Bhandari, for the State/Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shashikant Choudhari, for the Intervener.
CORAM : H.H. DR.GAURI KAWDIKAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
(COURT ROOM NO. 41)
DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2024
..2..
ORDER
01.
The application is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection
with C.R. No.48/2024 registered with R.C.F. Police Station for the
offence punishable under Sections 395, 354, 506, 504 and 506-II r/w
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
02.
Notice was issued to the respondent. The Investigating
Officer has filed Say at Exh.2. It is adopted by the Ld. Addl.P.P.
Intervener appeared vide Exh.3.
03.
Heard both the Ld. Counsels. It is the contention of the
advocate of the accused Nos.1 to 3 that false and concocted FIR is
filed against them. There is prior dispute between the family of the
accused No.2 and the complainant. The accused No.2 has lodged
FIR No.50/2024 against the present complainant and another about
the same incident. The accused No.1 is the sister in law of accused
No.2. Present accused No.2 is the complainant in FIR No.50/2024.
Accused No.3 is a neighbour. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are permanent
resident of Mumbai. No recovery is to be made from the accused.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 17/01/2024. In the video
recording, it can be seen that the complainant Sona Singh herself is
removing the gold chain from her neck. Thus, section 395 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not applicable. Continued incarceration
of the accused Nos.1 to 3 is not required. They are ready to abide by
all terms and conditions imposed by the Court. He has prayed for
grant of bail to accused Nos.1 to 3.
..3..
04.
Per contra Ld. Addl.P.P submitted that as there are cross
complaints between the complainant and family of the accused No.2,
there is possibility of future dispute and commission of some serious
body offence. Statement of witnesses have to be recorded. She
further submitted that if the accused are granted bail, there is
possibility that they will pressurize the complainant and tamper with
prosecution evidence. There is possibility that they will abscond from
Justice and hinder investigation. The Investigating Officer has
categorically mentioned that the footage in pen-drive sent by
Advocate Chitra Salunke and the CCTV Footage from the spot of
incident, it is seen that Sona Singh is removing her gold chain by her
right hand. Similarly, the purse of Sona Singh is seen to be with
Rajesh Gupta. She has prayed for rejection of the application.
05.
Perused record. On 16/1/2024 at 2:45 p.m. Pinky Jadhav
i.e. accused No.2 had gone to give complaint against Sunita Gupta.
Sona Singh i.e. the present complainant had also gone to the police
station to give complaint supporting Sunita Gupta.
There was
verbal dispute between Sunita Gupta and Pinky Jadhav. The police
gave them some understanding and asked them to go home. When
Sona Singh went to Mahaveer Medical at about 4:30 p.m., some
transgender asked her to give her mobile to him. When she refused,
said transgender told her to come outside the medical and talk. At
that time, one Tabbassum i.e. accused No.1 came there, abused her
in filthy language, slapped her, pulled her hair and pulled the gold
chain. At that time, Pinky Jadhav i.e. accused No.2 came there,
caught hold of the hand of Sona Singh, pulled her Kurta outraging
her modesty in public place and took the amount of Rs.25,000/-
..4..
from the purse of the complainant. It is alleged that Dipali Jadhav i.e
daughter of Pinky Jadhav accused No.2 said-eEeh ghyk ukxMh dj
js] fgph pMm`h nk[ko eyk] ghpk RghMhvks eh cuow.k Ogk;jy djrs
and was instigating Pinky, Tabbassum and the transgender to assault
her and herself was abusing the complainant Sona Singh. Sister of
Pinky Jadhav was also abusing the complainant in filthy language. It
is alleged that Rahul Dhanve i.e. accused No.3 came there and said;s jaMh dks uaxk djks] eknjpksn dks and was doing video shooting.
06.
The role attributed to accused No.1 is abusing the
complainant in filthy language, slapping her, pulling her hair and
pulling the gold chain. The role attributed to accused No.2 catching
hold of the hand of the complainant, pulled her Kurta thereby
outraging her modesty in public place and taking the amount of
Rs.25,000/- from the purse of the complainant. The role attributed to
accused No.3 is abusing in filthy language. It is pertinent to note that
the Investigating Officer has categorically mentioned that in the
footage taken on pen-drive, it is seen that the complainant herself is
removing her gold chain. Thus, section 395 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 is not attracted. The footage on pen-drive does not show
the accused No.2 putting her hand in the pocket of the complainant
and taking out the amount of Rs.25,000/-. There is no recovery to be
made from the accused No.2. The statement of Anita Sachin
Chougule supports the contention that the complainant herself took
out the gold chain.
07.
Taking into consideration, the role attributed to accused
Nos.1 and 3, no recovery from accused no.2, investigation done so
..5..
far; it is clear that their continued incarceration is not required. It is
settled legal position that pending offences in itself is not a ground to
reject the bail application. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are having
permanent residence at Mumbai and there is no possibility of
absconding or fleeing from justice. Thus, it is found fit to grant bail
by imposing certain terms and conditions. To facilitate investigation,
the accused Nos.1 to 3 can be directed to attend the police station.
Similarly, to protect the complainant, avoid future dispute and
repetition of offence, certain terms and condition can be imposed on
the accused Nos.1 to 3. For the aforesaid reasoning, it is found fit to
grant bail to the accused Nos.1 to 3 on certain terms and conditions.
Hence, the orderORDER
1.
The Criminal Bail Application is allowed.
2.
The accused No.1-Mrs. Tabassum Suraj Sawant, No.2- Mrs.
Pinky Vivek Jadhav and No.3- Rahul Ramesh Dhanave be
released on bail in Crime No.48 of 2024 registered with R.C.F.
Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 395,
354, 506, 504 and 506-II r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- each with
surety in like amount, on the following conditionsa) They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and
evidence.
b) They shall attend R.C.F. Police Station as and when
called by the Investigating Officer on written notice till
filing of the charge-sheet.
c) They shall not commit any offence in future.
d) They shall not leave India without permission of the
Court.
..6..
e) They shall furnish their permanent and temporary
address, if any, and their contact details to the concerned
police station.
f) They shall not contact the complainant or her family
member directly or indirectly by any means.
g) They shall not change their residential address without
prior intimation to the Investigation Officer and to the
concerned Court.
3.
Breach of any condition would entail cancellation of bail.
Date: 12/02/2024
Place: Mumbai
(Dr. Gauri Kawdikar)
Addl.Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai
..7..
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time
12/02/2024
03.58 P.M.
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.)
Name of Stenographer
Mrs. Mrunal S. Pendkhalkar
HHJ DR.GAURI KAWDIKAR
(Court Room No. 41)
Date of Pronouncement of
ORDER
12/02/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
12/02/2024
ORDER uploaded on
12/02/2024