Dismissed

Sajid Ismail Shabadi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Feb 2008APPLN/171/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Application No. 171 of 2008, denied pre-arrest bail to a society Chairman accused of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust under various IPC sections. The court held custodial investigation was necessary due to the large amount involved and the accused's prominent position.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail is rejected; applicant is not entitled to bail.

Sajid Ismail Shabadi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶2

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 171 of 2008

¶4

 Sajid Ismail Shabadi .. Applicant
 versus

¶5

 State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

 Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the applicant.

¶7

 Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State.

¶8

 CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J

¶9

 DATED : 4th February 2008

¶10

 P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard.

¶12

 2. By this application, the applicant seeks
 pre-arrest bail in connection with the offence
 registered at Jail Road police station punishable
 under C.R. No.355 of 2007 for alleged offence
 punishable u/s.409, 420, 464, 465, 468, 470 and 471
 r/w sec.34 of the IPC.

¶13

 3. At the relevant time, the applicant was a

¶14

 Vice Chairman of New Adarsh Nagari Sahakari Pat
 Sanstha, Solapur (for short ’the society’). He was
 thereafter elected as a Chairman of the Society in
 December 2002. After the audit, auditor discovered a
 shortage of cash in excess of Rs.7 lakhs. The FIR
 was therefore filed and registered in respect of the
 offence mentioned above.

¶15

 4. Learned APP submits that presence of the
 applicant is necessary for the purpose of custodial
 investigation to ascertain the possession of the cash
 and investigate into the misappropriation of money.
 Taking into consideration the large amount involved
 and also taking into consideration the fact that at
 the relevant time, the applicant was the office
 bearer of the society, in my view, his custodial
 investigation appears necessary. In the
 circumstances, applicant is not entitled to
 pre-arrest bail.

¶16

 5. Prior to this application, the applicant had
 filed application before the Sessions Judge for
 anticipatory bail. By an order dated 4th January
 2008, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has rejected
 the application for anticipatory bail. I see no
 reason to take a different view. In the
 circumstances, application is rejected.

¶17

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Sajid Ismail Shabadi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Ismail Shabadi 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

Ashok Hari Binawat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gurunath Atmaram Devalikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi Krishna Naidu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mushtaq Munna Rein Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Dinkar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aavdesh @ Sunny Lalchand Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra