Bombay High CourtABA/832/2016allowed

Nitin S/O. Murlidhar Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Manora, Dist. Washim

2017-06-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 aba832.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 832 OF 2016 (NITIN S/O MURLIDHAR CHAVAN...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. PS MANORA, DISTT.WASHIM) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant. Shri. T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 16 th JUNE, 2017.

Heard.

The applicant apprehending arrest in crime registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 354(A), 452, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, seeks pre-arrest bail.

The crime is registered on the complaint of victim aged about 16 years that on the date of the incident, the accused entered into her house, asked her to accompany them and on her refusal, the applicant poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.

The application is opposed on the ground that the victim is the eye witness and crime is of serious nature. The applicant, aged about 22 years, claims to be a Student and has stated that he is not involved in any other

2 aba832.16 crime or offence.

The applicant is granted protection by the order passed by this Court on 20th December, 2016. The Investigating Agency has not made any complaint that the applicant has misused the protection granted to him by this Court and that the applicant has not co-operated with the investigation. The non-applicant has not been able to show that the custody of the applicant is required for further investigation.

Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the interim order dated 20th December, 2016 is required to be confirmed and the application is allowed accordingly. JUDGE PB Patil.