Allowed

Riyaz Maqbool Nalband and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Mar 2010APPLN/856/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants accused under various IPC sections including 420 and 498-A. The applicants were involved in inter-community marriage disputes and subsequent complaints. The Court observed that investigation could be completed without custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; bail granted in sum of Rs. 5000/ each with one surety, subject to reporting to Investigating Officer.

Riyaz Maqbool Nalband and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.856 OF 2010

¶4

Mr. Riyaz Maqbool Nalband ) 2. Mrs. Aasiya Riyaz Nalband )..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent

¶5

Mr. Q. M. Ashfaq i/by Noor Jahan Aaga for the applicants.

¶6

Smt. V. R. Bhonsale APP for the State.

¶7

Date : 29^th March, 2010

¶8

¶9

1 This is an application made by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. They are

¶10

shown as accused in C.R.No.32/2009 registered by the Mahabaleshwar police station for alleged offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 498A, 323, 504 & 506 of IPC. It is the case of the applicants that they are married under the Special Marriage Act and the certificate of marriage has been annexed to the application. The said certificate indicates that applicant no.1 was married to one Aarti Narayan Divekar. According to the applicants Aarti Narayan Divekar has thereafter changed her name and she is presently applicant no.2 Aasiya Riyaz Nalband. It is the case of the applicants that since the marriage was inter community, family members are opposing. The applicant no.1 was thereafter made to marry one Rozina on 22.4.2007. Rozina has filed a complaint under Section 498A. On behalf of the applicant no.2 her pancard is shown to me. The same contains her photograph and her specimen signature as made in the court and shown to me. I am convinced that Aarti

¶11

¶12

Narayan Divekar is the same as applicant no.2. Both the applicants are present in Court and in my view, this is a case where investigation can be completed without custodial interrogation. It is therefore, directed that in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.32/2009 registered by the Mahabaleshwar Police station, the applicants will be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5000/ each with one surety each in the like amount subject to the condition that they will report to the Investigating officer as and when called upon by him in writing. Application stands disposed off.

¶13

(R.S.MOHITE,J)

¶14

Riyaz Maqbool Nalband and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaz Maqbool Nalband and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Bapu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Sahebrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Balkrishna Bhise and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Dattatraya Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajit Nivruti Nevase and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baban @ Govind Umaji Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra