Allowed

Sameer Dhadi @ Abdul Rashid Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Nov 2009APPLN/3305/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted bail to the applicant facing a false implication charge, noting no specific role was attributed to him in the complaint despite allegations against an intermediary. The applicant was directed to be released on bail with sureties and future reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in the sum of Rupees five thousand with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to weekly or monthly reporting.

Sameer Dhadi @ Abdul Rashid Shah Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3305 OF 2009

¶5

Mr. Sameer Dhadi @ Abdul Rashid Shah ....Applicant.

¶6

V/s

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent.

¶8

Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J.

¶10

DATE : 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶13

A complaint has been registered against one Yusuf Solet on 27/2/2009 by the complainant Asif Ansari. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the said Yusuf made a

¶14

¶15

representation that MHADA had made allotment of plots and one such plot was allotted in the name of one Subrato Jawaharlal Nath who wanted to sell the plot. According to the complainant the said Yusuf said that that the said plot should be purchased by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs 6,50,000/. Accordingly, the said amount was paid by the complainant to the said Yusuf. In the complaint, only allegation which is made against the present applicant is that on 3 to 4 occasions, complainant had noticed the present applicant sitting in the office of the said Yusuf and when he inquired about the applicant, Yusuf told him that the applicant was his partner. It is alleged that, later on, it transpired that the said plot allegedly allotted by MHADA in respect of which the representation was made by Yusuf, did not exist. Perusal of the complaint discloses that no overt act has been attributed to the present applicant. It is not stated by the complainant that any representation was made by the present applicant to the complainant or that he had received any amount.

¶16

Taking into consideration these facts, this Court by an order dated 24/8/2009 granted interim protection to the applicant and the applicant was directed to remain present before the Santacruz Police Station for a period of one week

¶17

¶18

between 11 a.m and 1 p.m. The grievance is made that though this direction was given by this Court, the applicant did not remain present before the said Police Station.

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that after the said order was passed by this Court, another complaint has been lodged against the present applicant and he is taking appropriate steps by filing appropriate application and, as such, he did not attend the said Police Station for the aforesaid reason.

¶20

Be that as it may, the fact remains that in this complaint no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. Therefore, applicant deserves to be released on bail in the event of his arrest.

¶21

Applicant, in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No.86 of 2009 registered with Santacruz Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 171, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/ with one or two sureties

¶22

in the like amount. Applicant, however, shall report to the concerned Police Station once in a week till filing of the charge

¶23

¶24

sheet and, thereafter, once in a month.

¶25

Application is disposed of.

¶26

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Sameer Dhadi @ Abdul Rashid Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Dhadi @ Abdul Rashid Shah 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

Kaushalya Kumari Surendrasing Chauhan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lahu Khedkar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Ziaodding Khamroddin Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prem Wandar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdullah Suleman Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahiboob Daudsab Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra