The High Court of Bombay dismissed an anticipatory bail application. The court noted pending criminal cases against the applicant and alleged fraud involving flat sales as sufficient grounds for rejection. The prayer to stay the order was also rejected.
Application dismissed; prayer for stay of order rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3611 OF 2004
--------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court’s
orders or directions
and Registrar’s orders
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.C. Shah for the
applicant.
Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P.for the
State.
CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.
DATE : 09.09.2004
P.C.
. Heard Counsel for the
parties.
2. I find no reason to
interfere with the view already
taken by the Court below in
rejecting anticipatory bail
application. The reasons
recorded by the Court below are
cogent and appropriate for
rejection of the anticipatory
:2:
bail application. Even before
this Court, learned A.P.P. has
produced original police papers
to indicate that the applicant
has sold 4 flats in favour of
seven different persons, as per
the information available at
present. Besides the flat No.
504 in A Wing has been sold by
the applicant in favour of her
own husband Mr. Khalid A.
Thakur on 17th March, 2004 by
registered document against which
loan from Bassain Catholic Bank
has been obtained. All these
circumstances are sufficient for
the time being to reject the
anticipatory bail application, as
investigation is still in
progress and also it is brought
to my notice that one more case
of cheating has been lodged
against the present applicant
during the pendency of this
:3:
application. The argument
canvassed on behalf of the
applicant that the present
complaint is at the behest of Mr.
Ramrao Desai, who is Police
Officer, does not commend to me.
Complaint is supported by
documents, some of them are
registered document. Besides the
applicant has not disclosed the
crucial facts that there are
already two pending criminal
cases against the applicant
bearing Cr.No. 357/1995
registered in Thane City Police
Station for offence punishable
under Sections 143,452,353, 504,
506 of Indian Penal Code and
another at D.N. Nagar Police
Station, Cr.No. 336/1996 for the
offences punishable under Section
454,387, 114 of I.P.C. This by
itself is a good ground for
rejection of the present
:4:
anticipatory bail application.
Hence, dismissed.
3. At this stage Mr. Shah
prays, that the operation of this
order be stayed for two weeks. I
see no ground to entertain this
prayer Prayer is rejected.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail application ought to be granted given pending criminal charges and sale of flats.
Whether the applicant can be granted interim relief from the operation of the dismissal order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Unknown Applicant
State
A.M. Khanwilkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court