Nagpur: Holding grounds raised in support of application for regular bail filed by the appellant, Badal Dhanraj Madke, as not sustainable, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, at the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court here, has rejected his application, with direction to the trial court to proceed with the trial.
This application was filed by the applicant for bail under section 483 of the BNSS (under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in respect of the Crime 639/2022 registered at the Police Station Kalamna, for the offences punishable under sections 363, 369, 370 and 120-R/w sec 34 of the IPC and under sections 75, 81 and 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Gold Rate
11 April 2025
The applicant was arrested on November 11, 2022. The crime was registered on the basis of a report lodged by one Rajkumari Raju Nishad, alleging that on November 10, 2022, co-accused Yogendra Prajapati came to her house and took her eight months old child in the shop behind her house to purchase something for the child and did not return. Thereafter she searched for him. However, he along with his wife was absconding and in that eventuality she approached the police and lodged the report.
During investigation, it revealed that Prajapati had handed over the said child to one accused Farzana alias Anjum Ansar Qureshi and obtained the consideration amount. Thereafter Farzana with Seema Parveen, Shweta Khan and Sachi Patil abducted the said child and sold that child to one Jitendra Jambhulkar for Rs 2,50,000. The alleged transaction has taken place at the house of the applicant. The accused persons searched out one Khobragade who wanted some child be given to her daughter in adoption.
Khobragade was called and the said child was handed over to him. As far as abduction of the child and trafficking are concerned, he was not concerned with those offences. Initially, the application filed for bail by the applicant came to be rejected on July3, 2023. This application was filed on the ground of delay in trial, which has been kept in abeyance as the other co-accused are facing charge under the MCOC Act.
According to the HC, the trial court should follow the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Akil alias Javed v. State (NCT of Delhi)- (2013) 7 SCC 125, particularly para 43 and 44 thereof. The HC has pointed out the observation of the Supreme Court in the said Shambhunath’s decision to the effect, even while disposing of the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Judge, must be scrupulously followed.
In this case also, the HC has upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant and issued directions in the light of the provisions contained in section 231 read with section 309 of Cr.PC for the trial Court to strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed therein order to ensure speedy trial of cases and also rule out the possibility of any manoeuvring taking place by granting undue long adjournment for mere asking.
Advocates S P Sonwane, A A Thakur, Shiba Thakur and Aquid Mirza appeared for the applicant. Public Prosecutor D V Chauhan and APP Harshita Prabhu represented the State.
