Allowed

Aslam @ Banti Shabbir Shaikh Jahagirdas v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Sept 2007APPLN/2500/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal regarding bail application in a case involving offences under the Official Secrets Act and IPC. The court granted bail subject to personal bond and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one local surety in the like amount and complying with reporting conditions.

Aslam @ Banti Shabbir Shaikh Jahagirdas Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.2500 OF 2007

¶4

Aslam @ Banti Shabbir Shaikh Jahagirdas ..Applicant.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

¶7

Mr A. P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate with Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate for the applicant.

¶8

Mr K. V. Saste, APP for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 19.9.2007.

¶10

P . C.

¶11

1 . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and

¶12

the learned APP for the State.

¶13

Perused the application and the material

¶14

available on record.

¶15

3.	The	applicant-original accused	No.2 arreste	d
in C.R.No.		3057 of 2006,	regis	tered	with		Manmad
Police Station,	for	the offence	under	Sections	3		and 9
of the	Of	ficial Secrets Act,	1923	and	under		Section
121 and 120 (B) of th Section 439 of the Cr.	e I.P.C. P.C.	, is seeking bail under
4.	The	present applicant-accused	came to be
arrested on		14.8.2006 and si	nce then	he	is	in	jail.
He has moved bail ap	plicatio	n in Sessions Court which
came to be rejected on	15.12.	2006.

¶16

[ 2 ]

¶17

Mr Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicant

¶18

submits		that	the	ap	plicant		has	been	falsely	implicated
in	the		present	case	on	the	basis	of	only	panchnama
dated		24	.8.2006	sho	wing	sei	zure	of	contraband	compact
disc		and	counter	feit	notes.		He	tried	to	demonstrate
that	if	the	prose	cution	wan	ts	to	rely	on this	evidence

¶19

alone, then possibility of acquittal of the accused

¶20

cannot be ruled out.

¶21

The learned A.P.P. tried to counter the above

¶22

argument	an	d	pres	sed	into			servi	ce the		criminal
antecedents		of		the	applican	t		through	va	rious	C.Rs.
registered		against		him.		He		further	submits	that	in
most	of	the		cases	though		he	is	acquitted,	that	by
itself	cannot		be	a	ground	to		say	he has	no	criminal
antecedents.			At	this	stage,		it	woul	d be	relevant	to
note	that	the	appl	icant	is on		bai	l in	C.R.No.	53	of

¶23

2003 for the offence allegedly committed under Section

¶24

302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶25

In the above view of the matter, there is no

¶26

reason to continue jail custody of the applicant any

¶27

further, I am, therefore, inclined to grant bail to

¶28

the applicant on following terms and conditions.

¶29

a] The applicant arrested in connection with in C.R.No. 3057 of 2006, registered with

¶30

[ 3 ]

¶31

Manmad Police Station, for the offence under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and under Section 121 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C., shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/with one local surety in the like amount. b] The applicant shall report to the above Police Station twice in a week i.e. Monday and Friday in between 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. c] The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnish to the Investigating Officer the details about his place of residence and address where he

¶32

propose to stay after he is enlarged on bail.

¶33

d] The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶34

e] The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigation.

¶35

f] Any observation made in this order shall

¶36

[ 4 ]

¶37

not be	constr	ued as		any	finding	or	any
expression	of	opinion	on	the	merits	of	the
case	at	the		time	of		trial.

¶38

The applicant is put on notice that on a

¶39

report by the State in violating any of the conditions

¶40

by him, mentioned herein, shall result in cancellation

¶41

of this bail order.

¶42

Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶43

(V.C.DAGA,J)

Aslam @ Banti Shabbir Shaikh Jahagirdas v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam @ Banti Shabbir Shaikh Jahagirdas v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Radhakrishna Sahankarsaran Shukla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Himmatlal Parekh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangeeta Chandrakant Narwade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anant Gajanan Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjitsingh Premsingh Dasana Vs the State of Maharashtra