Allowed

Rohtash Rathi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Sept 2007APPLN/2851/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant who was apprehending arrest for allegedly purchasing a stolen vehicle under IPC 379. The bail was granted subject to conditions including residing in Mumbai for two weeks, daily police reporting, and cooperation with the investigating agency.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties subject to conditions of residence, police reporting, and cooperation with investigation.

Rohtash Rathi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2851 OF 2007

¶4

 Rohtash Rathi. ... Applicant.
 V/s.

¶5

 State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶6

 Ramesh Dube - Patil i/b. Jay & Co.
 for the applicant.

¶7

 Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J.
DATED: 24th September 2007.
P.C.:
----

¶9

 . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and
 learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

 2. This application is under section 438 of Code
 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail.
 The applicant is apprehending his arrest in
 CR.No.7/2007 registered with C.B.D. Police Station,
 Belapur, New Mumbai for the offence alleged to have
 been committed under section 379 of Indian Penal Code
 regarding purchase of a stolen vehicle from one Sunil

¶11

 Kumar.

¶12

 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits
 that the applicant is a permanent resident of Rohatak,
 State of Hariyana having his immovable properties. He
 further submits that one of his brothers is working in
 Army and another brother is in service at Delhi. He
 also submits that there are no criminal antecedents
 against him. According to him, this is an isolated
 act; wherein the applicant under bonafide impression
 has purchased vehicle without knowledge that the
 vehicle is allegedly stolen by one Sunil Kumar. In
 his submission, transaction entered into by him is
 bonafide for the valuable consideration without notice
 of defective title.

¶13

 4. The learned A.P.P. submits that for further
 investigation presence of the present applicant is
 necessary.

¶14

 5. While reacting to the aforesaid submission,
 learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
 applicant shall stay in Mumbai for a period of two
 weeks and attend the concerned police station every
 day, so as to enable the investigating officer to
 complete his investigation. He also undertakes to
 co-operate with the investigating agency by attending
 the concerned police station as and when called even

¶15

 - 3 -

¶16

 after expiry of two weeks subject to reasonable
 advance notice. All these statements made on behalf
 of the applicant are accepted and taken on record.

¶17

 6. In the above view of the matter, I am inclined
 to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant, subject to
 the following conditions:

¶18

 (a) In the event of arrest of the
 applicant in connection with CR.No.7/2007
 registered with C.B.D. Police Station,
 Belapur, New Mumbai, he shall be released on
 bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two
 sureties to make up the said amount.

¶19

 (b) The applicant shall stay in Mumbai/
 New Mumbai for a period of two weeks and
 report the concerned police station every day.
 He shall, thereafter, attend the police
 station as when called with due advance notice
 and shall co-operate with the investigating
 agency.

¶20

 (c) The applicant shall not directly or
 indirectly, make any inducement or threat, or

¶21

 - 4 -

¶22

 pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall
 not in any manner tamper with the prosecution

¶23

 evidence.

¶24

 (d) This order of anticipatory bail shall
 operate till the filing of the chargesheet.
 After filing of chargesheet, it would be open
 for the applicant to apply for regular bail

¶25

 before regular court.

¶26

 (e) It is needless to mention that breach
 of any of the conditions by the applicant

¶27

 shall result in cancellation of bail.

¶28

 7. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

JUDGE

Rohtash Rathi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohtash Rathi 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

Khatib Imran Akhil Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Annasaheb Hubale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharma Dattu Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shilpa Rajiv Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Machis Tukaram Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Rasheed Hasainar Puttur Vs the State of Maharashtra