Allowed

Vijaykumar Shridhar Pillai and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Jun 2011BA/457/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Bail Application No.457 of 2011, the Bombay High Court granted bail to applicants detained since November 2010. The single judge, finding no antecedents and noting that passports were not definitively declared bogus, directed the deposit of Rs.10 lacs as a condition for release on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to deposit of Rs.10 lacs and furnishing of surety of Rs.50,000 each.

Vijaykumar Shridhar Pillai and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2011)

BA-457-11.sxw

Dixit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.457 OF 2011

¶6

Vijaykumar Shirdhar Pillai & Anr. V/s.	...	Applicants
The State of Maharashtra,
Thru' Wadala Police Station, Mumbai	...	Respondent

¶7

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, i/b. Mr. Prashant Patil, for the Applicants.

¶8

Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J.

¶10

DATED :- 28TH JUNE, 2011.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Heard.

¶13

I have gone through the F.I.R. and the copy of the Charge Sheet that is annexed to the Bail Application. The Applicants are in custody since 24th November, 2010. The investigation is over and Charge Sheet has already been filed. The trial is, however, not yet commenced. Even the charge has not been framed.

¶14

Though there is an allegation of offences of forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating etc., it does not seem that the case of the Investigating Agency is that any of the passports, allegedly found in the office of the Applicants, were bogus or forged documents. It also does not appear that the

BA-457-11.sxw

Dixit

passport holders were fictitious persons. In fact, the learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that a majority of the passports have been returned to the concerned passport holders.

¶19

Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the Applicants, also submits that the total amount unlawfully gained by committing alleged offences is said to be Rs.10 lacs. He submits that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Applicants, the Applicants are ready to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lacs with the Investigating Agency/learned Magistrate. He also agrees that the learned Magistrate may deal with the said amount at the conclusion of the trial and pass appropriate orders for its disposal.

¶20

Under the circumstances and considering that there are no antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicants, subject to certain conditions.

¶21

On the Applicants depositing, or causing to be deposited a sum of Rs.10 lacs, with the Investigating Agency, or in the Court of the learned Magistrate, they be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety in like amount.

¶22

The learned Magistrate shall expedite the trial of the case and endeavour to dispose it of within a period of two years from today.

Vijaykumar Shridhar Pillai and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaykumar Shridhar Pillai and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Mahaling Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Mahaling Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Mahaling Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Firoz Moharam Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Amrutrao Satav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju @ Baboo @ Mohamadali Roshanali Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra