Allowed

Sameer Bashir Kudle v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jul 2012ABA/396/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sameer Bashir Kudle, who apprehends arrest in connection with offences under Sections 489(B), (C), and (D) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Bombay at Bench allowed the application, granting bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,00/- with solvent sureties aggregating to Rs. 1,00,00/-, subject to conditions including reporting to

Sameer Bashir Kudle Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1ABA 396-12.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.396 OF 2012

¶5

Sameer Bashir Kudle.Applicant

¶6

The State of Maharashtra.Respondent

¶7

Mr.S.G.Kudle, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶8

P.C.

¶9

.Heard the learned counsel for the

¶10

respective parties.

¶11

2.This is the third application for

¶12

anticipatory bail by a person, who apprehends
arrest in connection with C.R.No.79 of 2011 for

¶13

the offences punishable under Sections 489(B),

¶14

(C) & (D) of the Indian Penal Code registered

¶15

with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji,
District - Kolhapur. The first bail application

¶16

was rejected on 05.01.2012 observing that one

¶17

2ABA 396-12.odt

¶18

Pramod Waghmare had stated that in his presence
the applicant had paid cash to Shiraj Momin, who
collected forged currency notes from Allauddin
Patel. The learned counsel for the applicant
states that what the applicant had paid to
Shiraj Momin is not alleged to be forged

¶19

currency notes nor is there any evidence to show
that the applicant had paid cash to Shiraj Momin
to purchase forged currency notes. He submits
that statement of Pramod Waghmare was not
possibly read in the correct light when the
previous bail application was rejected on 5th

¶20

January, 2012. The learned APP submits that
except for statement of Pramod Waghmare, there

¶21

is nothing to connect the applicant. Pramod
Waghmare's statement shows that on 16th May, 2011
at about 10:00 p.m. the applicant Sameer came to

¶22

the house of one Jabbar and Sameer paid some

¶23

cash to Shiraj Momin. Shiraj was then asked to

¶24

go to village Shedom. Pramod and Shiraj came to
Solapur Railway Station and then went by railway
to Shedom. On 17th May, 2011, at Shedom Railway

¶25

3ABA 396-12.odt

¶26

Station, Shiraj made a phone call to a person
and told him that they had come to Shedom
Railway Station. The person concerned came to
the Shedom Railway Station. That person was
Allauddin Patel. Shiraj Momin paid cash to
Allauddin Patel. Allauddin Patel handed over a
bundle of Rs.100/- notes to Shiraj. Shiraj then
told Pramod that the bundle of Rs.100/- was

¶27

Rs.50,000/- but he purchased it for Rs.5,000/-.

¶28

There is nothing to show that Shiraj had

¶29

purchased these forged currency notes from the

¶30

amount provided by Sameer or on behalf of
Sameer. Further, though previous applications

¶31

were rejected and the first, as far back as on
05.01.2012 and the investigating officer had
still not arrested applicant, need for his being
in custody appears bleak, as charge sheet is
already filed.

¶32

3.Considering this, though previous

¶33

application for anticipatory bail was rejected,
this application is allowed. In the event of

¶34

4ABA 396-12.odt

¶35

arrest, applicant be released on bail on his
furnishing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with one or more solvent sureties in the sum
aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/- on the following
conditions.

¶36

(i)The applicant shall report at the
Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji,
District - Kolhapur on 17thJuly, 2012
at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, as and when
required by the investigating officer.

¶37

(ii)The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.

¶38

(iii)The applicant shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the trial
Court.

¶39

.The order will remain in force till the

¶40

trial is over with the only stipulation that if

¶41

charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh

¶42

bonds before the trial Court in view of the

¶43

Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2011 (SC)

¶44

312(Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of

¶45

Maharashtra And Ors.).

¶46

5ABA 396-12.odt

¶47

4.Anticipatory Bail Application stands

¶48

disposed of.

¶49

(R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Sameer Bashir Kudle v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Bashir Kudle 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yuvraj Mahadev Gore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vasant Corporation Vs Raju Traders and Anr.

Vasant Corporation Vs Raju Traders and Anr.

Sunil Narayan Tegninamni Vs Dilip Sadashivrao Desai and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Popat Shankar Palwe

Sunil Narayan Tegninamni Vs Dilip Sadashivrao Desai and Ors.