Single judge granted anticipatory bail to applicants apprehending arrest in a case concerning residential premises dispute and alleged forcible eviction and cheating under IPC sections.
Release on police bond of Rs. 20,000 each with one solvent surety in like amount, subject to usual conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2014
Jagdish Prasad Gupta and Another....Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra....Respondent
____________
Mr. Viral K. Rathod i/by Mr. N.K. Sharma, for the Applicants.
Mrs. A.A. Mani, APP, for the State.
CORAM: G. S. PATEL, J. Vacation Court.
DATED : JANUARY 3, 2014.
P.C.:
Heard.
2. The applicants apprehend arrest in relation to C.R. No.468
of 2013 registered with the Malavani Police Station, Mumbai under
Sections 141, 142, 143, 145, 147, 149, 452, 506(2), 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
3.Briefly stated, the dispute relates to residential premises.
According to the prosecution, on 30th November 2013, one Himachal
Verma and the applicants forcibly demanded that the complainant, one
Mohd. Halim Abdul Hammed Shaikh, vacate the flat in which he and his
family were staying on being given a sum of Rs.35,000/-. The
1 of 3
Shephali
complainant has alleged that when he and his family returned to their
house, they found others in occupation. This led to further altercations
and C.R. No.468 of 2013 was thereupon registered. It is not in dispute
that the applicants’ co-accused Mr. Himachal Verma has obtained
anticipatory bail on 27th December 2013 from the Sessions Court.
However, the applicants’ application for anticipatory bail was rejected
by the Sessions Court. Hence the present Application.
4. In my view, there is no reason to refuse the application made
today. Hence, in the event of the applicants being arrested in C.R.
No.468 of 2013 registered with the Malavani Police Station, Mumbai,
they shall be released on their furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- each with one solvent local surety each in the like amount.
This shall be subject to the usual conditions, namely:
(i) The Applicants shall report to the police station concerned as and when required.(ii) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with prosecution evidence, and also shall not in any way impede the investigation.(iii) Any observation/s 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.2 of 3
Shephali
(iv) It is made clear that any violation or breach of the conditions which are imposed shall entail in cancellation of bail.(v) The Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed off in the above terms.(vi) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.(G. S. PATEL, J.)
3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the event of arrest in respect of the charges framed in C.R. No. 468 of 2013.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdish Prasad Gupta
The State of Maharashtra
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court