Allowed

Shababa Mahiboob Nadaf v. the State of Maharasshtra

Bombay HC19 Nov 2014ABA/1295/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge confirmed pre-arrest bail granted by a predecessor for an applicant accused of offences under sections 498(A), 306, and 304(B) IPC. Despite a submission of absconding by the prosecution, the application was allowed with a condition to attend the investigating officer regularly.

What did the court decide?

The ad-interim protection granted by the predecessor is confirmed. Applicant directed to attend the investigating officer every Monday and Thursday from 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon until the filing of th

Shababa Mahiboob Nadaf Vs the State of Maharasshtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

903-aba-1295-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1295 OF 2014

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERVENTION APPLICATION NO.737 OF 2014

¶6

Shabana Mahiboob Nadaf ...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

Mr. Jaydeep Mane, Advocate for the Applicant
Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State.
Mr. Sachin Deolkar i/b. V.V. Purwant, Advocate
for the applicant in Intervention application
No. 737 of 2014.

¶8

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.

¶9

DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

.My predecessor vide order dated 7th

¶12

October, 2014 has granted pre arrest bail to the
applicant in connection with C.R. No. 230 of 2014

¶13

registered with Vijapur Naka police station,
Solapur for the offences punishable under sections

1/3

Vishal

903-aba-1295-2014

498(A), 306, 304(B) read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code. It is not in dispute that the applicant is
married sisterinlaw of the deceased Tasleem.

¶18

2. Learned APP has candidly submitted that
investigation has revealed that at the time of
occurrence of the incident, the applicant was
residing separately along with her husband. Having
regard to the same and the nature of accusation
against the applicant, it is difficult to perceive
of there being imperative need of custodial
intervention of applicant regarding any particular
aspect for completion of investigation.

¶19

3. Though learned APP tried to oppose the

¶20

application by submitting that the applicant is
absconding still merely on the said sole

¶21

circumstance, the pre arrest bail does not deserve

¶22

to be denied in fact and circumstances of present

¶23

case. Resultantly, application is allowed.

2/3

Vishal

903-aba-1295-2014

4. The adinterim protection given by my

¶28

predecessor is hereby confirmed on earlier terms
and conditions. However, the applicant now shall
attend the investigating officer on every Monday

¶29

and Thursday in 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon until
filing of chargesheet. In event of the applicant
attending accordingly the investigating officer
shall give the acknowledgment of the attendance
given. In event of applicant not attending
accordingly, liberty to the prosecution to move for
cancellation.

¶30

application stands disposed of.

¶31

3/3

¶32

Vishal

Shababa Mahiboob Nadaf v. the State of Maharasshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shababa Mahiboob Nadaf v. the State of Maharasshtra

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

Ganpati Gundu Farakate and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Yellappa Bonsode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Varsha Dattatraya Nevase and Anr. Vs Dattatraya Govindrao Nevase and Anr.

Hanmant Digambar Shinde (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahaji Sopan Shirgire and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhimrao Ganpati Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.