BA 10272022
:
1:
Dt. 25.05.2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSION AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1027 OF 2022
(CNR NO. MHCC020057892022)
Tamilselvan Thangaraj
) … Applicant / Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through V.P. Marg Police Station)
)
) … Respondent
Ld. Adv. Vikas Ambetkar 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 : 25.05.2022.
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
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
BA 10272022
:
2:
Dt. 25.05.2022
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. 4,80,000/ 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 coaccused 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 He
submitted he is taxi / rickshaw driver and took Jaykumar and 4 months
child in his taxi only as a customer and dropped them to their
destination. He had not received any money out of consideration
agreed. 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 there is racket who
are involved in kidnapping the minor children and selling them for
BA 10272022
:
3:
Dt. 25.05.2022
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, they prepared the false documents
and sold it to the coaccused.
7.
It is alleged that the kidnapped child was given to present
Applicant for sell and he handed over the child to Accused Jaykumar
and Anandkumar at Bhavani. There is primafacie evidence available to
connect the Accused with commission of offence. The offence is serious
in nature. The Accused was part of racket involved in kidnapping child
and selling the same for money. Looking into gravity of offence the
prayer of Accused for release on bail can’t be granted. Hence, I hereby
proceed to pass following Order :
ORDER
The Criminal Bail Application No. 1027 of 2022 stands rejected.
Date : 25.05.2022.
Dictation Typed on
Checked & Signed on
(SANJASHREE J. GHARAT)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Greater Bombay
:
:
25.05.2022.
27.05.2022.
BA 10272022
:
4:
Dt. 25.05.2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
06.06.2022 at 11.00 am
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 25.05.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 27.05.2022
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
06.06.2022