High Court

Legal Reasoning

1923 BA.1797.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.923 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1797 OF 2024Imran Yusuf Qureshi @ Mulla Kattar.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra and another.… Respondents...Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant.Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent / State.Mr. R. B. Dhilpe & Mr. Parth Surendra Salunke, Advocates for Respdt. No.2....CORAM :SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATE :23rd September, 2025. P.C.:1Heard. 2This is an application for granting regular bail underSection 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “theCr.P.C.”) in connection with Crime No.666 of 2022, registered withShrirampur City Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offencespunishable under Sections 366(A), 368, 370(4), 370(A)(1), 372, 373,376(2)(j)(n), 376(D) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,“the IPC”), under Sections 3, 4, 5(g), 6 and 17 of the Protection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”), 2923 BA.1797.2024.odtunder Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956, under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, and under Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MaharashtraControl of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, “the MCOC Act”). 3The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out thereport in which the informant averred that she is 18 years old. Sheknew Suman Pagare and her brother Sachin. She also knew co-accused Pappu @ Prashant Gore and the applicant. She alleged that,on the occasion of Ganpati festival at about 06.00 pm to 07.00 pm,said Suman Pagare came to her house and told her that she was notfeeling well and requested her, to come with her to her house. Sincethe informant knew Suman, she went alongwith her to Suman’s house.After reaching there, Suman told the informant that she would go tothe medical store to bring some medicines and left the informant alonein her house. Thereafter, Pappu @ Prashant Gore, Sachin, and theapplicant came there. They assaulted the informant and threatenedher that if she did not do as they said, they would set her and hermother on fire. The informant got frightened/scared. At that time,Pappu, Sachin and the applicant committed forcible sexual intercoursewith her against her will. Thereafter, Suman also came there andPappu, Suman and the applicant threatened the informant that if she 3923 BA.1797.2024.odtdisclosed the said incident to anyone, she would face direconsequences. Due to the fear, the informant did not disclose the saidincident to anybody. 4The informant further averred that about four to five dayslater, when she was alone at her house in evening, Suman again camethere, threatened her and took her to her house, where Pappu, Sachinand the applicant were already sitting. Thereafter, Pappu, Sachin andthe applicant forcibly made her to sit in a white-coloured car and tookher near a hill at Padhari Bridge to a hut (Tapri). There, the applicantintroduced the informant to a person, telling her that his name is BabaChendwal. The applicant told the informant that from that day onwardsshe has to do whatever that Baba directed to her, and if she failed todo so, she and her mother would be eliminated. Thereafter, afterreceiving some money from Baba Chendwal, the applicant and Pappuleft the informant with him. At that place, five women were alreadystanding. At that time, Baba Chendwal introduced the informant to aman and instructed her to have sexual intercourse with him. Babareceived money from that man and forcibly compelled the informant tohave sexual intercourse with him on a mat. This way, Baba Chendwalused to accept money from customers and forcibly compelled theinformant to have sexual intercourse with them. At nights, driver ofBaba Chendwal used to take the informant and other five women to a 4923 BA.1797.2024.odtroom in Aurangabad and the next day in evening at about 04.00 pm,again brought them back to the hut near the hill at Padhari Bridge. Inthis way, Baba Chendwal exploited the informant by compelling her toindulge in sexual relations with his customers for money. 5The informant further averred that after four to five days,Pappu and the applicant again came there, and thereafter, alongwithBaba Chendwal, they took her to Shevgaon, where they took a roomon rent from Meenabai Rupchand Muswat at Shivajinagar. At thatplace, the applicant, Pappu and Baba Chendwal compelled her tohave sexual relations with customers for money, threatening her that ifshe failed to do so, she and her mother would be eliminated.Therefore, she has done the said act she had to do. Thereafter, everyten to fifteen days, the applicant or Pappu used to come to Shevgaonand collect money from her. They were frequently threatening her thatalongwith her, her mother will also be eliminated. Therefore, theinformant lodged the report on 1st August, 2022 against the applicantand others. 6The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is falsely implicated in the crime. He is behind the bars fromthe year 2022. The informant is more than 18 years old and she hasnot lodged the report immediately. False allegations of immoral 5923 BA.1797.2024.odttrafficking and sexual exploitation have been made against theapplicant. The provisions of MCOC Act are not attracted, as theinformant voluntarily resided at 2-3 places for the purpose ofprostitution. There is no such evidence of mens-rea and motive.There is no evidence of independent witness to support thecontentions of the informant. The learned counsel for the applicantfurther pointed out that co-accused Baba Chendwal and Meenabaihave been released on bail by this Court. It is lastly prayed to allowthe application. 7The learned APP for the State as well as the learnedcounsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application andsubmitted that the applicant is involved in the serious crime and he isthe prime accused in this case. They pointed out that the applicant ishaving serious antecedents and has been booked in several crimes. Ifhe is released on bail, certainly he will pressurize the prosecutionwitnesses, particularly the prosecutrix, and would tamper the evidence.The applicant is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground ofparity. Considering the role of the applicant, the provisions of MCOCAct are invoked against him. It is lastly prayed to reject the application8The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel forrespondent No.2 submitted that, at present, the applicant is facing 6923 BA.1797.2024.odtprosecution in the following cases, wherein he has been shown as anaccused:Sr. No.Police Station and FIR No.Case No.1Shrirampur P.S. (126 of 2016)S.C. No.32 of 20222Shrirampur P.S. (17 of 2018)S.C.C. No.269 of 20173Shrirampur P.S. (687 of 2021)R.C.C. No.13 of 20224Shrirampur P.S. (347 of 2022)S.C. No.09 of 20235Shrirampur P.S. (371 of 2022)S.C.C. No.941 of 20226Shrirampur P.S. (631 of 2022)Special Case No.25 of 20227Shrirampur P.S. (733 of 2022)S.C. No.49 of 20229The learned counsel for respondent No.2 pointed out theorder dated 12th August, 2025, by which directions were given by thisCourt to respondent No.2 / victim to remain present before the learnedRegistrar (Judicial) of this Court on 29th August, 2025, to verify theaffidavit filed by her dated 30th January, 2025. Accordingly, sheappeared before the learned Registrar (Judicial) and thereafter, reportwas submitted by learned Registrar (Judicial) to this Court. This Courtperused the said report on 9th September, 2025. As per the saidreport, her affidavit (Exhibit ‘X’) was shown to her and she stated thatthe affidavit dated 30th January, 2025, was obtained from her byapplicant under the threat of causing injury to her and her mother. Shefurther stated that she never consented for granting bail to the presentapplicant and she even opposed the application for granting bail to thepresent applicant. 7923 BA.1797.2024.odt10Perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the report and theorder dated 9th September, 2025 passed by this Court.11The applicant is booked for a serious crime. He hascriminal antecedents. The applicant is the main accused in this crime.The first incident took place at the house of co-accused SumanPagare, where this applicant committed rape on her by threateningher. The affidavit of the informant was obtained by him under thethreat. 12The delay caused for lodging the report can be explainedat the time of trial. As far as applicability of MCOC Act is concerned, itis not prayed by the applicant before the Trial Court that the provisionsof the MCOC Act are not applicable to him and he shall be exoneratedfrom the provisions of that Act. Only because the provisions of thePOCSO Act are invoked against the applicant when the victim is 18years old, that cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant, who iswirepuller of the crime, as the crime is very serious and Section 376(2)(j)(n) and 376(D) of the IPC are also invoked against the applicantwith the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 13In view of the above, if the applicant is released on bail, he 8923 BA.1797.2024.odtwill certainly pressurize the informant, her mother and other witnessesand would tamper the evidence. 14Considering above reasons and the serious nature of thecrime, that the applicant compelled the informant for doing thebusiness of prostitution, which is punishable under the provisions ofthe Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 376 of the IPC, theapplicant is certainly not entitled for bail as he is involved in the seriouscrime. No case is made out for granting bail to him on the ground ofparity as well as on the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception.Considering all these aspects, the application deserves to be rejected.15The bail application is rejected. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga