LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-1503

THAKOR INDRAVADANBHAI HASMUKHBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On June 17, 2022
Thakor Indravadanbhai Hasmukhbhai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the First Information Report being C.R. No.11191066211903 of 2021 registered with Vasna Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Ss. 354(A) , 354(C) , 354(D)(1) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 11(4) , 12 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012).

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the present application is after filing of the chargesheet and the complainant has made allegations against all the family members under Ss. 354(A) , 354(C) , 354(D)(1) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code . Even more graver allegations have been made under the POCSO Act, 2012, by alleging that the accused No.2 had harassed the daughter of the complainant, aged about 17 years by asking her to sit on his two wheeler and further allegations are made of using abusive words in public against the daughter. It is further submitted that the allegations against accused No.3 are of making obscene gestures. Further, the complainant has even roped the accused No.1 - the father of the accused No.2 and 3 by making false allegations of harassment. It is also submitted that the dispute pertains to parking of vehicles and this has resulted into lodging of the First Information Report wherein the complainant has roped the father, the two sons and even the nephew. It is further submitted that the father is on regular bail and the accused No.4 was granted anticipatory bail by the Court. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicants herein may be released on regular bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that hat all the accused have harassed a minor and the complainant and as the case is under the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012 and therefore, urged to reject this application.