Dismissed

Asif Rafique Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Jul 2013BA/755/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the single judge rejected the plea for release, holding that recovery of stolen goods and identification in a TID parade established complicity, making bail unfit given the offence's seriousness. The trial was expedited for completion within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial ordered to be expedited and completed within six months.

Asif Rafique Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

5-BA-755-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.755 OF 2013

¶5

MR.ASHIF RAFIQUE SHAIKH )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Shivprasad C. Kanojia Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mrs.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State.

¶10

Mr.Avinash Shinde, Head Constable, 705, Local Crime Branch, Thane (Rural), present in the court.

¶11

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 22^nd JULY, 2013.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 Heard Mr.Shivprasad Kanojia, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, the learned APP for the State.

¶14

2 While opposing the application for bail, among other things, it was submitted that there were other cases pending against the applicant in the State of Gujarat. Since this was not admitted, the investigating agency was directed to cause production of some authentic record showing that such cases are registered against the applicant. Today, the Investigating Officer has produced a letter received from the Superintendent, Criminal Branch, Chikhli Court,

¶15

avk 1/3

¶16

5-BA-755-2013

¶17

District Navsari, Gujarat, showing that a criminal case in respect of offences punishable under Sections 386, 392 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is pending against the applicant in that court. Also, the Registrar of the Civil court at Palsana had submitted that there is one more case pending against the applicant in the Sessions court.

¶18

3 There are a number of cases pending against the applicant in the State of Maharashtra also, but except the present one, in other matters the applicant has been released on bail, considering the nature of material against him in those cases.

¶19

4 So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that a part of the robbed property has been recovered from the house of the applicant. It appears that the identity of the robbed property was also got established in the course of investigation. It also appears that in a Test Identification Parade that was held, the applicant has been identified as one of the culprits, by the first informant. Thus, so far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be said that there is no material to show the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence.

¶20

5 Under these circumstances, considering all other relevant aspects of the matter, including the seriousness of the offence, I do not think it fit to release the applicant on bail.

¶21

6 The application is rejected.

¶22

avk 2/3

¶23

5-BA-755-2013

¶24

7 However, the trial is ordered to be expedited.

¶25

8 The trial court shall endeavour to complete the trial within a period of six months from today.

¶26

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶27

avk 3/3

Asif Rafique Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Rafique Shaikh 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

Umaima K. Chitalwala Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S True Finess (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bangur Nagar Police Station and Ors.

Vasant Sadashiv Damle Vs Ashilak Gulchand Shinde and Ors.

Rohit Kumar Arora Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Jaffarullah Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra