MHNS010045692020 Order below Exh. 1 in Cri. Bail Application No. 1674/2020.

{ Rabiya Aslam Qureshi + 2 Vs. State }

This is an application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.Brief facts giving rise to this application can be narrated as follows.

The applicants apprehend their arrest in Crime No. 415/2020 punishable under sections 353, 506, 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Mumbai Naka police station, Nashik on accusation that on 25.11.2020 in between 16.30 to 17.30 hours near Aayesh Masjid, Wadala Road, Nashik, the applicants­accused obstructed the informant from discharging his duties and further threatened him and thereby committed an offence.

3.The applicants contend that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Nothing is to be seized or recovered from them. They are ready to co­operate in further investigation. They are not having any criminal antecedent. Material investigation is completed and therefore, their custodial interrogation is not necessary. They are having permanent place of abode and roots in the society, therefore, possibility of fleeing from justice does not arise. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, they have prayed for prearrest bail.

4.After hearing the applicants, interim protection was granted to them by way of order dated 30.11.2020 and notice was issued to the respondent.

5.In response to the notice, the respondent State filed its say and denied all the adverse allegations made by the applicants and reiterated the prosecution case. It is contended that there is primafacie sufficient material on record to show their involvement in the commission of offence. If they are released on prearrest bail, there will be hurdle in further investigation. On these lines, the respondent has prayed for rejection of the bail application.

6.Heard learned advocate Mr. Inamdar on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Nikam. I have also perused the investigation papers made available by the Investigating Officer. Applicant No.1 is a woman. The recitals of FIR prima­facie shows that the accused obstructed the informant from discharging his duties. Nothing is to be seized or recovered from them. The facts and circumstances make it clear that custodial interrogation of applicants is unwarranted. The offences which are mentioned in say are against accused No.2 who is not applicant in this petition. The applicants are ready to co­operate in further investigation. Therefore, applicants have made out the case for prearrest bail. With this, I proceed to pass the following order.

O R D E R

Application is allowed and ad interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants vide order dated 30.11.2020 is hereby confirmed with the same terms and conditions.

Seema Digitally signed by Seema Chandrakant Chandrakant Jadhav Date: 2020.12.11 Jadhav 17:31:32 +0530 ( Smt. S.C. Jadhav ) 11th December, 2020. Additional Sessions Judge­8,
Nashik.