JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for State. Perused the papers. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is officiating as Assistant General Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce. He was posted at Cuffe Parade Branch, Mumbai. On 17/2/2013 Aishwarya daughter of Chandrashekhar Deodhar lodged a report at Vile Parle (East) Police Station, Mumbai alleging therein that she is residing with her parents in 501, Girish Bhuvan, Dixit Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 57. The applicant is also residing in the same building on the 6th floor. According to her, on 12th February, 2013 at about 9.30 a.m. she had left her house to go to the market. When she entered into the lift of the said building, the watchman was present in the lift. The lift stopped at 6th floor and the applicant had entered into the said lift. There after the applicant had touched her breast and had outraged her modesty. She felt humiliated. She was scared and therefore did not disclose the incident to anybody. She went home and she started crying and upon enquiry she had informed about the said incident to her parents. On the basis of her statement Crime No. 70 of 2013 is registered at Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant is apprehending arrest.

(2.) Initially the applicant was granted ad interim relief on certain conditions. The applicant has cooperated with the investigating agency. The learned Counsel representing the victim has submitted that heinousness of the offence does not entitled the applicant to grant of prearrest bail as it is in fact a deterrent factor. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the very registration of the offence against the applicant has exposed him to social obloquy and that he has been humiliated in the society as well as at the work place. For a person who claimed to be dignified and a person with high profile, the very registration of offence is sufficiently deterrent factor. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in these circumstances custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary.

(3.) The applicant therefore can be granted bail on imposing certain stringent conditions. Hence following order: