Allowed

Mohd. Najmuddin S/O Gulam Shabbir and Anor. v. the State of Mah. Thru P.S.O.

Bombay HC4 Jun 2007APPLN/1285/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to applicants facing arrest in a case under Section 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted and fixed reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon executing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety, subject to conditions of reporting and cooperation.

Mohd. Najmuddin S/O Gulam Shabbir and Anor. Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1285/2007

¶3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶4

Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶5

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or Judges or Judge' or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶6

Court's or Judge's or Judges or Judge'

¶7

CORAM : A.P. Lavande, J DATE : 4.6.2007

¶8

Heard Shri J.B.Kasat, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Sonak, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 53/2007 registered at Police Station, Frezarpura, Amravati for the offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicants seek anticipatory bail.

¶9

Briefly, the prosecution case is that the complainant Smt. Farhana is the wife of the accused No. 1 Khawaja Awessuddin. The complainant went to Kuwait with her husband where she delivered a child on 14.6.2005. In March, 2006 her husband told her that he has lost his job at Kuwait and, therefore, he would try to secure the job at Canada and on the said false pretext he told his wife that she should to India with her daughter and insisted that she should not go to Akola but she should go to Amravati and stay at the house of her aunt. On 9.3.2006 the complainant with her daughter returned from Kuwait. Accused no. 2

¶10

¶11

Khawaja Moinuddin the brother of the husband of the complainant received her at the Airport and on the say of accused no.2 she accompanied him to the house of her aunt. It is the case of the prosecution that on the pretext that the complainant should be sent back to Kuwait the present applicants had obtained passport of the complainant and her daughter. Based on these allegations, crime for the offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the applicants.

¶12

The application has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that the Investigating Agency needs to recover the passport from the custody of the applicants and further the other accused are absconding.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and considering the grounds of objections raised by the Investigating Agency, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicants is not warranted and this is a fit case in which the applicants deserve to be released on bail in the event of their arrest. Therefore, I pass the following order.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants, each of them shall be released on bail upon executing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to

¶15

¶16

the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to the following terms and conditions.

¶17

i) The applicants shall report to Police Station, Frezerpura, Amravati for a period of 3 days from 7.6.2007 between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

¶18

ii) The applicants shall furnish their addresses to the Investigating Officer and shall make themselves available as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶19

iii) The applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency in the investigation of the crime.

¶20

iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶21

v) This order shall be in operation till filing of the charge sheet.

¶22

The application stands disposed of.

¶23

Judge

¶24

patle

Mohd. Najmuddin S/O Gulam Shabbir and Anor. v. the State of Mah. Thru P.S.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Najmuddin S/O Gulam Shabbir and Anor. v. the State of Mah. Thru P.S.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vallabh v.Juwarkar and Anr., Vs Shri Digambar v. Juwarkar, (Dec) through Lr'S Navelim Goa.

Sherkhan S/O Niyamat Khan Pathan Vs State of Mah. and Anor.

Dadaji Ramji Chouqhari(Dead)Thr.,Lrs Manikrao Dadaji Choudhari and Another Vs Kashinath Kisan Dhawas and Others

Narendra Sheshrao Pawade Vs Mohan Janradhan Pawade and Another

Yashwant Ramkrushna Meshram Vs State of Maha. Thru. Police Station and Anor.

Dinesh S/O Gunwant Tule Vs State of Mah. Thru P.S.O.