Nijam Siddiki Ahmed Ansari v. The State Of Maharashtra
15-ba-1792-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1792 OF 2024 Nijam Siddiki Ahmed Ansari ...
Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent ------------------- Ms. Nargis Khan, for the applicant.
Ms. Savita Yadav, APP, for the Respondent / State. Ms. Gunjan Mangla, for the respondent no. 2.
--------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:
2024.11.18 18:49:31 +0530
CORAM
:
ANIL S. KILOR, J.
VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :
18TH NOVEMBER, 2024.
PC:
1.
Heard.
2.
By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.194 of 2022, registered with Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(a)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(b), 4, 5(m) and 6 of the of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3.
Having gone through the charge-sheet and the relevant material collected by the IO, during the investigation, it is evident that there is sufficient incriminating material against the applicant and varsha
15-ba-1792-2024.doc further the medical report supports the case of the prosecution. 4.
The medical report says that the evidence of attempted penetrative vaginal sexual intercourse and linear abrasion over back were seen. On the date of incident the victim was 3 years and 9 months old. Furthermore, redness around perineum was found. Similarly, redness over labia minora was present. 5.
Thus, considering the medical evidence, prima facie the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence is clear. 6.
In the circumstances, the application is rejected. 7.
It is expected that in view of the mandate of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the trial expeditiously.
8.
Fees of the advocate appointed to represent the respondent no. 2 be quantified as per the rules.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J) varsha