Allowed anticipatory bail application. The court found the complainant to be an impersonator who failed to provide evidence of genuineness. Bail granted with bond of Rs. 5000 each.
Anticipatory bail allowed on term of furnishing bail and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
sbw
aba935.13
1/1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.935 OF 2013
Shakil Shamimuddin Peerjade & Ors.
...Applicants
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate, i/b. Satyajit Dighe for the Applicants.
Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent No.1– State.
Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th October, 2013
1] Learned APP has informed the Court that on what has transpired so far, the complainant appears to be an impersonator and the complainant has failed to bring any evidence to prove her genuineness.
2] Therefore without going into any further discussion, this application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of paragraph No.9 on applicants furnishing bail and surety bond in a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) each.
wadhwa
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application should be allowed on the prima facie view that the complainant appears to be an impersonator.
Shakil Shamimuddin Peerjade & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
A. H. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
