Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. B. Appln. No. 1075/2022 (CNR No. MHNS010046322022)

Vijay Bhagchand Bafna Vs. State.

Heard:
Ld.Adv. A. K. Kale for the applicant.

Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.

I. O. present.

1.This is an application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 397/2021 registered at Ambad Police station for the offence punishable under sections 354, 504, 506, 509, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 8 of POCSO, Act. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the applicant/accused had gone to the shop of the victim’s mother to purchase cigarettes and on finding her alone, molested her by pressing her breast. When she raised an alarm, some people came to her aid, when the applicant assaulted them and also damaged her cart.

2.Ld. Adv. for the applicant has submitted that the description of the accused as mentioned in the FIR does not match the actual physical appearance of the applicant. The FIR has been lodged against an unknown person. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the accused was ugly and partly bald, whereas, the applicant is fair and good­looking and not bald. Secondly, the applicant is a cigarette supplier and is well­known to the victim’s mother (who is a cigarette retailer). He has no criminal antecedents. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the court.

3.Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle has opposed the application on the ground that although the FIR is against an unknown person, there are three eye witnesses to the incident who have identified the applicant as the miscreant/molester. In fact, they are the ones who took the applicant away from the spot. Therefore, merely because it is contended by the applicant that he is good­looking etc., cannot take away his identification by the eye­witnesses. The statements of these witnesses have also been recorded. Applicant was absconding after the FIR was registered. He was absconding even after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court. Thereafter, he approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. His Anticipatory Bail Application No. 167/2022 also came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 21/06/2022. He surrendered to the investigating agency in August, 2022 much after the rejection of his bail application by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

4.Perusal of the case­diary indicates prima­facie case against the applicant. Although the FIR is against an unknown person, there are three eye witnesses to the incident who have identified the applicant as the miscreant/molester. In fact, they are the ones who took the applicant away from the spot.

Therefore, merely because it is contended by the applicant that he is good­looking etc., cannot take away his identification by the eye­witnesses. The statements of these witnesses have also been recorded. Applicant was absconding after the FIR was registered and even after his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The applicant appears to have scant regard for the process of the Court. If he is released on bail, he may commit similar offences and may flee from justice. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the bail application.

: O R D E R :

Application stands rejected.

(Order is dictated and pronounced in open court).

Digitally signed by MRIDULA MRIDULA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2022.09.13 14:45:54 +0530 Nashik Mridula Bhatia 13/09/2022 District Judge­3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.