Allowed

Shaikh Ziaodding Khamroddin v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Nov 2009APPLN/4196/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC regarding an offense of cheating and forgery, the court ruled that custodial interrogation was unnecessary due to the applicant's minor role and ordered his release on bail with conditions to report to the police station.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- with sureties in like amount, subject to reporting to police station periodically.

Shaikh Ziaodding Khamroddin Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4196 OF 2009

¶5

Shri Shaikh Ziaodding Khamroddin ... Applicant.

¶6

V/s

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.

¶8

Mr. A. Siddique i/b Mr. Mateen Shaikh for the applicant.

¶9

Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J.

¶11

DATE : 3RD NOVEMBER, 2009

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

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

¶14

By an order dated 18/9/2009, this Court was pleased to grant interim protection to the applicant and had directed the applicant to attend the concerned Police Station for one week

¶15

¶16

between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. However, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the applicant had not, in fact, attended the Police Station. Applicant has filed an affidavit to that effect, stating therein that he had, in fact, attended the Police Station.

¶17

The only complaint came to be filed by one Rahul Bhaskar Sonawne for the offence punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complainant, he had purchased a vehicle from one Laxman Baburav Kadam and, later on, the said vehicle was seized by the police after they came to know that the number of vehicle was fabricated. It is alleged that the applicant was a mediator in the said sale transaction. No other role has been attributed to the applicant. In this view of the matter, in my view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

¶18

Applicant, therefore, in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No.117 of 2009 registered with the Vijapurnaka Police Station, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant, however, shall report to the concerned Police Station for a period of one week from 9th November, 2009 between 4 p.m. to

¶19

¶20

6 p.m and thereafter once in a month till the hearing and final disposal of the case.

¶21

Application is disposed of.

¶22

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Shaikh Ziaodding Khamroddin v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Ziaodding Khamroddin 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

Purnima Trilokekar Vs Prashant Vachhrajani

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Smt. Saraswati Mundra and Ors.

Savitridevi B. Singhal Vs Aura Soaps Pvt. Ltd.

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

Lahu Khedkar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Adi @ Eideraj Rajendra Naidu Vs the State of Maharashtra