Allowed

Ijaj Ahmed Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jan 2010APPLN/325/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of attempt to murder and an offence under the S.C. & S.T. Act, noting no specific overt act was alleged against him in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions regarding reporting to the police station.

Ijaj Ahmed Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2010)

abs

FARAD CONTINUATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 325 OF 2010

¶7

Ijaj Ahmed Qureshi .. Applicant V/s

¶8

State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders

¶11

Mr. U.R. Agandsurve for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2010

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

By this application, the applicant seeks

¶16

bail in connection with C.R. No.291 of 2009 registered at Karmala Police Station for an alleged offence punishable under section 307 read with other sections of I.P.C. and also an

¶17

offence under section 3(1) of the S.C. & S.T.

¶18

¶19

Act.

¶20

The prosecution case in short is that one Akeel Hamid Qureshi had teased the sister of the complainant. The complainant who claims to belong to a scheduled caste, along with his brotherinlaw Sakpal Landge accosted Akeel and asked him why he was teasing his sister. At that time, Akeel along with 45 friends abused the complainant by caste and also assaulted him with knife (chaku).

¶21

The complainant lodged an F.I.R. on the same day. In the F.I.R., he named Akeel and his friends including the present applicant. The complainant has alleged that Akeel referred to the caste of the complainant. No specific overtact has been alleged against the applicant. It is not even alleged that the applicant had any arm.

¶22

In the circumstances, the applicant can be

¶23

¶24

granted bail. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The applicant be released on bail on his executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/ with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions that the applicant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses, shall not interfere with the prosecution evidence and shall report to the concerned police station once a fortnight on 1^st or 2^nd and 15^th or 16^th of every British calendar month. In the event of breach of any of the conditions, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled forthwith.

Ijaj Ahmed Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ijaj Ahmed Qureshi 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

Dilip @ Nandu Ramrao Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Dadasaheb Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramsh Mohan Yamjale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Baburao Jawalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ijaj Ahmed Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarvasiddhi Krishnamohan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.