Allowed

Anthony Feliciano Cardozo and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jul 2012ABA/491/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the wife of a principal accused in a property dispute involving alleged document fraud. The court granted bail while in custody, subject to conditions including recovery of bonds and appearance for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Applicant No.2 released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties totaling Rs. 50,000/-, undertaking to report to Investigation Officer, and obeying specific co

Anthony Feliciano Cardozo and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

ABA 491-12

¶3

asmita

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No.491 OF 2012

¶6

1 Anthony Feliciano Cardozo 2 Faria Rose V/s. The State of Maharashtra

¶7

... Applicants.

¶8

... Respondent.

¶9

Mr Akhilesh Singh for the Applicant. Mr Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State.

¶10

WITH

¶11

MISC. APPLICATION No.244 OF 2012

¶12

Philomena Correa V/s

¶13

... Applicant

¶14

Anthony Cardozo & Ors.

¶15

... Respondents.

¶16

Mr Anil Lalla for the Applicant/Intervenor. Mr Akhilesh Singh for the Respondents.

¶17

CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : 25th July, 2012.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

This an application for anticipatory bail by accused No.2 in

¶20

CC.No.100/Misc/2011 registered with learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶21

asmita 2 ABA 491-12

¶22

25^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The allegation is that the complainant is

¶23

the sister of accused No.1 Anthony Cardozo and accused No.9 Cornellia Rodrigues. They had some ancestral property. Applicant No.2 is the wife of Anthony Cardozo. Anthony Cardozo is already arrested and is in jail. His application already stands disposed of as not pressed vide the order passed on 4^th July, 2012.

¶24

2 . The allegation is that accused No.1 Anthony Cardozo, accused No.2 Faria Rose, i.e., present applicant and accused No.9 Cornellia Rodrigues prepared false documents and extinguished the share of complainant Phelomena Correa in the properties, which she was to get

¶25

from her parents and made them over to accused Nos.3 & 4 to 8 D.D. Builders and Developers and its partners. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken as true, it is not necessary to have applicant No.2 in custody, since the offence is alleged to be committed by creating certain documents in this

¶26

case. The learned Counsel states that the Applicant No.2 is simply the wife of accused No.1 Anthony Cardozo and therefore she cannot be blamed

¶27

if Anthony and the other sister executed some documents in her favour.

¶28

¶29

ABA 491-12

¶30

asmita

¶31

The learned Counsel for the complainant submits that unless the present applicant is arrested, the other accused persons absconding would not come along. He also submitted that applicant No.2 was part of the conspiracy to deprive the complainant of her share in the property. Investigation into this complaint is necessary, but since the allegation is only that applicant No.2 had participated in the conspiracy of creating documents and in any case rights of the complainant cannot be extinguished without her consent. Applicant No.2's being in custody for the purpose of investigation may not be necessary.

¶32

In view of this, in the event of applicant No.2's arrest in M.E.C.R.No.02/2011 registered with Byculla Police Station, Mumbai, applicant No.2 be released on bail on her furnishing P.R bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) on the condition that applicant No.2 shall report to the Investigating Officer on 30th July, 2012 at 11.00 am and thereafter on every Monday for interrogation till the charge-sheet is filed.

¶33

4 ABA 491-12

¶34

asmita

¶35

Applicant No.2 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

¶36

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and she shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court.

¶37

This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, applicant No.2 may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 312.

¶38

7. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Anthony Feliciano Cardozo and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony Feliciano Cardozo 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakha Vinod Dhavare @ Rekha Prakash Belle and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetan Pralhad Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujata Rajendra Babare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jafar Munshiali Raja Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Jokhulal Chourasiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhukar Raghunath Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra