Allowed

Salim Fatehmohammed Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Dec 2013APPLN/5297/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application allowed in a theft case. Court directed release on bail against cash and solvent surety after verifying applicant is resident with no bad antecedents, noting co-accused remain at large.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail against cash security and a solvent surety from Jalgaon, with conditions against tampering with witnesses and committing similar offences.

Salim Fatehmohammed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

criapln5297-13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5297/2013

¶5

Salim Fatehmohammed Ansari V/s

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

Shri Satej S.Jadhav,Adv.for applicant Smt.V.A.Shinde,APP for State.

¶8

CORAM :T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2013.

¶9

ORAL ORDER :

¶10

The application is filed for relief of bail. Both sides are heard. By way of precaution, this Court had directed applicant to produce some record to show that he is permanent resident of the place and there is no possibility of his absconding. Some record was produced and it is verified through investigating officer. The record like school leaving certificate and the record with regard to house property of his parents is genuine as per the report. Though no bad antecedents are reported in respect of background, the matter was heard.

¶11

2] Charge sheet is filed against applicant in respect of one

¶12

2 criapln5297-13.odt

¶13

incident which took place on 6/9/12. Complainant Ravindra Bachhav who was working as Supervisor in a company Ashish Electricals was present in the office of the company at 2.30 hrs. He noticed that 3 persons had entered the premises and they had already tied the hands and legs of the watchman. Out of the three persons, 2 persons had covered their faces by using piece of cloth. They made enquiry about the money and then they took away articles like T.V. Set, 60 quintals wire of copper and bronze which was more than Rs.20 lakh. This offence is committed by showing weapons like knife. During the course of investigation, applicant came to be arrested and on 9/9/12 and 14/9/12, applicant gave statement u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of those statements, most of the stolen property came to be recovered.

¶14

3] Learned counsel for applicant submitted that identification parade was not held and present applicant is not identified. These circumstances need not be considered at this stage, as there is evidence of aforesaid nature and provisions of Section 117 of Evidence Act can be used against him. Submission is made that the applicant has been behind bars since 9/9/12 or 10/9/12. In view of aforesaid circumstances and as the applicant is not involved in any other crime, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep him behind bars till disposal of the case which may be filed against him. Other two accused are not traced.

¶15

5] In the result, application is allowed. Applicant is to be

¶16

3 criapln5297-13.odt

¶17

released on bail on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. The surety should be from Jalgaon. He is not to tamper with prosecution witnesses. He is not to commit similar offence.

¶18

[T.V.NALAWADE,J.]

¶19

umg/

Salim Fatehmohammed Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Fatehmohammed Ansari 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

Sangram Hanmantappa Chakure Vs Mahadevi Shankarappa Belure and Anr.

Mahadevi Shankarappa Belure Vs Sangram Hanmantappa Chakure and Another

The State of Mah Vs Shivaji Ananda Bharodkar and Ors.

Hakim Huzur Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangita Suresh Gavhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaijinath Gitaram Ghogre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra