(Order below Exh.1)
B.A.No.1014/2022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK AT
NASHIK
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1014 OF 2022
1 Sajiya Sallauddin Shaikh
2 Nasreen Jamir Shaikh
] .. Applicants/accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
]
Through– P.I. Bhadrakali Police ]
Station.
]
..Respondent/prosecution
Advocate Shri.Jadhav for the applicant/accused.
APP Smt.Patil for the State.
ORDER BELOW EXH.1
This is bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal
Procedure Code in C.R. No. 221/2022 of Bhadrakali Police Station
for offence punishable under Sections 395, 452, 143, 147, 149, 504,
506 of the IPC and 37(1)(3), 135 of the Mumbai Police Act.
2.
Facts of the prosecution case are as follows
That informant Sarfraj @ Soju Sherkhan Pathan lodged
complaint that one incident of kidnapping has been took place with
his niece (16 years) at the instance of Mr. Jibran Shaikh and
accordingly the offence has been registered on 01.08.2022. She has
been kept in observation home. He received a telephonic call from
applicant no. 1 that why he is interested to send behind Jail and
ready to pay money in order to resolve the dispute. On 01.08.2022 at
5.10 p.m when informant was in his home subsequently 10 to 12
male and female persons came forcibly in his house introduced
Page 1 of 4
(Order below Exh.1)
B.A.No.1014/2022
themselves as Sajiya Salauddin Shaikh and threatened to informant.
All of them run towards person of his wife. They assaulted by slaps
and chappal, abused in filthy language and forcibly stolen one ear
ring worth Rs.31,000/, mobile phone of Samsung company worth
Rs.2,000/ and cash amount of Rs.800/ i.e. total of stolen property
Rs.33,800/. Accordingly, the complaint of the dacoity under the
aforesaid sections has been alleged in concern police station.
3.
The case of the applicants are as follows :
Both are implicated falsely in previous enmity. This is the
counter case as earlier at the same day the complaint under section
294, 354 of the IPC has been filed by applicant no.1 against the
informant at Bhadrakali Police Station and investigation is pending.
Applicants are the prestigious persons of the society having no
criminal antecedents.
They are ready to abide any condition if
leveled.
4.
I have heard Ld. Advocate Shri. Jadhav who vehemently
submitted that there are the counter blast complaint between both
the parties. In which the informant is yet to be arrested.
The
complaint is delayed for 4 days without justifiable reason.
5.
I have heard Ld. APP Smt. Patil. She submitted that the six
accused are absconding and yet to be arrested.
The informant
Mr.Sarfraj @ Soju Sherkhan Pathan is present in Court.
He has
submitted that he has apprehension that the accused may pressurize
him. Ld. Advocate for the applicants Shri. Shaikh is present. I have
Page 2 of 4
(Order below Exh.1)
B.A.No.1014/2022
heard him at considerable length but lastly submitted for the
stringent conditions if bail granted.
6.
Heard both side at length. Perused application and say. Out of
the aforesaid sections which are implicated against both accused
section 395 of the IPC is a major offence provides punishment for
dacoity with imprisonment for life, or with rigours imprisonment for
a term which may extend to 10 years. After perusal of the counter
case, the FIR in 228/2022 it reveals that on 01.08.2022 at 17.00
hours the informant had called them at his home at Nanawali and
while settling the dispute he run towards persons of applicant no. 1
and they be abused in filthy language and also assaulted. At this
initial stage of bail application I have to play limited role. It is true
that the dispute arose due to the alleged incident of kidnapping
between Mr. Jameer Shaikh and Nasreen Shaikh and both of them
relatives of the informant and accused respectively.
So therefore
there may be force in the argument advanced by Advocate for the
applicants that when they visited to the informant home at Nanawali
dispute may be arose. Yes, the offence under section 395 of the IPC
is certainly serious one but Ld. Advocate for the accused/applicant
ready to deposit amount of alleged stolen property worth
Rs.33,000/ in the Court under protest. There are no criminal
antecedent against the both applicants as per I.O. I have perused the
complaint application dated 02.08.2022 filed to Bhadrakali Police
Station by Mr. Sarfraj Pathan against the applicants and all of the
documents. It is admitted fact that both parties are relatives to each
other. No purpose will suffice by keeping the applicants/accused
behind bar. The applicant no. 1 is a lady. No criminal antecedent
Page 3 of 4
(Order below Exh.1)
B.A.No.1014/2022
against applicant no. 2. Jail is exception and bail is rule. Hence,
order
ORDER
1.
Bail Application below Exh.1 is allowed.
2.
Applicants/accused be released on bail in C.R.
No.221/2022 registered with Bhadrakali Police
Station for an offence punishable under Sections 395,
452, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of the IPC and 37(1)
(3), 135 of the Mumbai Police Act on furnishing P.
R. Bond of Rs.30,000/ each with one surety in like
amount on following conditions.
(a) They shall attend Bhadrakali P. S. on every
Monday in between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till
filing of chargesheet.
(b) They shall not come in contact in any way with the
informant/injured and witnesses, nor tamper
them.
(c) Applicants/accused shall submit his contact
numbers and proof in respect of permanent and
temporary residence to this Court.
(d) They shall not repeat the same type of offence. The
breach of condition will be caused to cancel the
bail.
3.
The applicants shall deposit Rs. 33,800/ (Rupees
Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Only) in the
Court of Sessions under protest subject to final
outcome of case.
4.
Criminal Bail
accordingly.
Nashik.
Date : 20.08.2022
Application
stands
disposed
of
Sd/xxx
(Dr. U.J. More)
I/c. Additional Sessions Judge
Nashik.
Page 4 of 4