Manisha @ Manita D/O. Sohan Chhadi v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Lakadganj Nagpur

1 aba56.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.56/2017 Manisha @ Manita D/o Sohan Chhadi ..Vs..

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Lakadganj, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.M. Patwardhan, Adv. for the applicant. Shri M.J. Khan, A.P.P. for the respondent / State. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATE : 15.6.2017.

Heard.

The applicant, apprehending arrest in crime registered against her for the offence punishable under Sections 344, 366(A), 370-A, 372, and 373 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, has sought pre-arrest bail.

According to the investigating agency, victim Ankita disclosed while giving statement that she is resident of Deopura, Distt. Ramnagar Bundi, Rajasthan and she is brought to Nagpur by the applicant. The facts on the record show that the name of the applicant is added after a period of 2 months of the

2 aba56.17 incident. The applicant aged about 26 yeas claims to be a housewife and has stated that she is not involved in any other crime / offence earlier. The applicant is granted interim protection by this Court by the order dated 20th February, 2017. The investigating agency has not complained that the applicant has misused the protection granted by this Court. Though in the reply filed before this Court, the investigating agency has stated that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required there is nothing on the record to point out that the applicant has not co-operated with the investigating agency.

In the above facts, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for pre-arrest bail.

Hence, the following order:

In the event of arrest in Crime No.331/2016 registered by the non-applicant, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs.25,000/- and two solvent sureties in the like amount. The application is allowed in the above terms.

JUDGE Tambaskar.