Allowed

Umesh Ramesh Brid v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013BA/389/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant in a case involving charges of forgery and cheating, finding further custodial interrogation unnecessary as co-accused were already released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on bail Rs.15,000 with one or two local sureties in like amount; specific conditions imposed including residence reporting and cooperation with trial court.

Umesh Ramesh Brid Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

BA-389-13.sxw

¶2

Dixit

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.389 OF 2013

¶5

Umesh Ramesh Brid ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai. ... Respondent

¶6

Mrs. Rohini Wagh for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8 TH APRIL, 2013.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

Perused this Criminal Bail Application and the annexures thereto including the report of the Investigating Officer.

¶12

To my mind, when the offences alleged are of forgery and cheating and the Applicant is in custody since 23^rd January, 2013, further custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The co-accused have been enlarged on bail with appropriate conditions and, even if the cheques are yet to be seized, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Hence, the following order :-

¶14

“O R D E R”

¶15

(i) The Applicant in C.R. No.38 of 2013, registered at Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, is enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount.

¶16

1/3

¶17

BA-389-13.sxw

¶18

(ii) The Applicant shall attend Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai once a week, i.e. every Saturday, between 10 a.m. and 12 Noon.

¶19

(iii) The Applicant shall not leave Mumbai without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶20

(iv) The Applicant shall deposit his Passport, if any, with the Investigating Officer.

¶21

(v) The benefit of this order will not be available to the Applicant unless the Applicant furnishes a true copy of the residential address and his residence therein to the Investigating Officer and he shall not change that address without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer and until the trial is concluded.

¶22

(vi) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement and/or influence and/or pressurize or cause any threat or give any promise to anybody acquainted with the facts of accusations made against the Applicants so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts either to the Court or to the Investigating Agency or to any Police Officer.

¶23

(vii) The Applicant shall not tamper, in any manner whatsoever, with the prosecution evidence whatever.

¶24

(viii) The shall not commit similar or any other offence while on bail.

¶25

2/3

¶26

BA-389-13.sxw

¶27

(ix) The Applicant shall co-operate with the learned Trial Judge in expeditious disposal of the case.

¶28

(x) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial.

¶29

(xi) It is made clear that any violation or breach of the conditions, which are imposed, shall entail in cancellation of bail.

¶30

The Criminal Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶31

(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

¶32

3/3

Umesh Ramesh Brid v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Ramesh Brid v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smtia Suhas Rhurkar Vs Prakash Sumant Chimburkar and Anr.

Manohar Keval Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arvind Vijeta Mittal and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Situ Ramnath Shastri Vs M/S. K. Vishal Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Santosh Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Subhaschandra Jain Vs Amit Suresh Lohakare and Anr.