Allowed

Veena @ Kajol Yogesh Solomon v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Nov 2014ABA/1096/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for a woman applicant charged with cheating. Finding no imperative need for custodial interrogation as the nature of allegations suggested investigation was complete, the Court confirmed the preceding interim order with a condition for repeated attendance default.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was allowed; the pre-arrest bail order is confirmed with the modification that successive default to attend the investigating officer results in automatic cancellatio

Veena @ Kajol Yogesh Solomon Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

903-aba-1096-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1096 OF 2014

¶4

Veena Yogesh Solomon ...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Ms. Pratibha Avhad i/b. Ranjeet Sangle a/w.
Hitesh Sangle, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.

¶7

DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

.Application for pre arrest bail. The

¶10

applicant who is a woman is protected by an order
of ad-interim pre arrest bail passed by my learned

¶11

predecessor on 03-09-2014. The said order is
continued thereafter and is in force uptill today.

¶12

The prosecution reply does not reveal any reason

¶13

making out case of imperative need of custodial
interrogation of the applicant for completion of
investigation of the crime.

1/3

Vishal

903-aba-1096-2014

2.The perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that

¶18

accusation is that applicant and her husband having
cheated the first informant on the pretext of a
land transaction and obtained the amounts i.e.

¶19

initially Rs. 8.50 lacs, thereafter Rs. 10 lacs at
Hyderbad, thereafter Rs. 30 lacs by RTGS transfer
and then Rs. 27 lacs.

¶20

3. Neither the F.I.R. nor the material in the

¶21

papers of investigation reveals as to who has
received the cash amount i.e. whether the applicant

¶22

or her husband. The only allegation against the
applicant seems to be the amount transferred by
RTGS being transferred in a joint account
maintained by her husband along with her. The co-
accused/husband was arrested during the course of
the investigation and has been released on bail.

¶23

4.Having regard to the said aspect and

¶24

considering the nature of the transaction and the

2/3

Vishal

903-aba-1096-2014

evidence pertaining the allegation seems to be
already collected by investigating agency, it is
difficult to negative the prayer for pre arrest
bail.

¶29

5.Resultantly, application is allowed. Ad-

¶30

interim order passed by my predecessor on 03-09-
2014 is hereby confirmed on earlier terms and
conditions with the modification that in event of

¶31

successive default on the part of the applicant to
attend the investigating officer, the protection

¶32

granted by this order would stand automatically
cancelled and the investigating officer would be
free to take appropriate steps. The attendance

¶33

certificate be given to the applicant.

¶34

Application stands disposed of.

¶35

3/3

¶36

Vishal

Veena @ Kajol Yogesh Solomon v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena @ Kajol Yogesh Solomon 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inayatali Abdulsalam Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anand Krushnat Takale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Tijomal Wadhwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Jeevraj Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamlesh Parmanand Karmavat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shridhar Rangnathan Vs the State of Maharashtra