ABA-G-613.2012 v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
for anticipatory bail is allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the above, Criminal Application No.324 of 2012 also stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)
Judgment
Shri Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b Ms Priya Oswal for the Applicant. Ms R.M. Gadhvi, APP, for the State. S/Shri M.S. Mohite with Subodh Desai for the Intervener. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 24, 2012 P.C:
Operative part
This is an application for anticipatory bail by a person arrayed as ABA-G-613.2012 accused No.7 in a complaint of cheating and forgery filed on 6-3-2009 upon which an investigation was ordered on 18-8-2009. The investigation is going on since then. The investigating officer had filed reports before the learned Magistrate twice. In the report of 13-6-2011 the investigating officer had stated that the applicant came in picture only after the alleged offences were committed and therefore his complicity was not indicated. Another report had been filed by the investigating officer on 27-8-2010 in which a similar statement was made. The learned counsel for the intervener also, at this stage, states that he has not come across anything to warrant the applicant being subjected to custodial interrogation. In view of this, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.
In the the event of the applicant’s arrest in M.E.C.R. No.4 of 2009 of Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali (East), Mumbai, the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to `50,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall report at the police station concerned for interrogation as and when ABA-G-613.2012 required by the I.O., and an intimation by SMS would be enough.
The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court.
This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC
The anticipatory bail application accordingly stands disposed of.
In view of the above, Criminal Application No.324 of 2012 also stands disposed of.
(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: for anticipatory bail is allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Jul 2012. The bench was R C CHAVAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.