Allowed

Ali Sayyed Amir Ali v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jul 2014ABA/286/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant faced charges of cheating and forgery regarding forged sale deeds and property rights, amidst a pending civil suit on the same property title.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing Rs. 20,000/- bond with sureties, attendance conditions, and restrictions on leaving India.

Ali Sayyed Amir Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2 ABA 286 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2014.

¶4

Ali Sayyed Amir Ali .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, for the Applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the respondent State.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 15^th July, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This application is moved for anticipatory bail as the applicant is facing charges under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the complainant that her mother was the owner of two units. Out of two units, one unit was sold to the applicant accused in December, 2006. However, he prepared forged sale deed in the name of first informant and on the basis of said forged sale deed, he became owner of the said unit. Thereafter on 10^th May, 2007, on the basis of forged sale

¶10

Page No.1 of 4

¶11

2 ABA 286 OF 2014

¶12

deed, he represented himself as owner of the

¶13

said unit and got property rights in the

¶14

redeveloped society from the builder. When she was denied accommodation at the time when the

¶15

scheme of redevelopment was complete, she enquired and found that her signatures were forged on the said sale deed dated 10^th may, 2007. Her signature i.e. Khurshid Bano is forged. So she filed private complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 32^nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai, who gave directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which offence under M.E.C.R.No.4 of 2013 is registered against the applicant.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is much delay in lodging F.I.R. as the alleged forged agreement of sale is of 10^th May, 2007. He submits that the applicant has not committed any offence much less offence of fraud or forgery.

¶17

Page No.2 of 4

¶18

2 ABA 286 OF 2014

¶19

The learned APP opposed the

¶20

application and submitted that the original agreement of sale is not handed over by the applicant accused to the police and therefore, it is not possible for them to ascertain the alleged forgery.

¶21

Perused the complaint and the documents produced. The alleged forged

¶22

document i.e. original document is required in

¶23

the investigation and so also specimen hand writing of the applicant is required. In view of the allegations made and as the title and

¶24

interest in immovable property is to be determined by the Civil Court and as the

¶25

sister of the applicant accused in whose name property was purchased, has filed a suit and

¶26

the same is pending in Civil Court, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail on the following terms :-

¶27

Order

¶28

i) In the event of applicant’s arrest

¶29

Page No.3 of 4

¶30

2 ABA 286 OF 2014

¶31

in above crime, he be released on

¶32

bail on his furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.20,000/-.

¶33

ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday and Thursday, between 5.00 p.m to 6.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet.

¶34

iii) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶35

iv) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶36

iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.

¶37

The application is disposed of

¶38

accordingly.

¶39

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶40

Page No.4 of 4

Ali Sayyed Amir Ali v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Sayyed Amir Ali 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

Abhijit Chandrakant Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aarti Abhijit Choudhari (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kapil Vitthal Kalebere Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Bhairavnath Khupase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarojani Shirshail Nandure and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arvind Rakhmaji Bhandare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra