Allowed

Sujata Shambaji Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2014ABA/809/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, who faced blackmail charges under IPC 451 and 384, noting her name was absent from the FIR. The court imposed standard conditions prohibiting evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with sureties, upon conditions not to tamper with evidence and to cooperate with the investigation.

Sujata Shambaji Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

16. ABA809_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 809 OF 2014

¶5

Sujata Shambaji Yadav … Applicant

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Ms. Sheetal Thakur i/b. Mr. Vikram Chavan, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State.

¶9

Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 1^st August, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Application is moved by the applicant/accused for

¶13

anticipatory bail, as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 451 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 93 of 2014 registered with Silvassa Police Station, District Silvassa.

¶14

One Dilip Dhirubhai Goswami has given the FIR stating that he

¶15

was blackmailed on 8^th May, 2014 by accused Kiran Jaiswal and other two persons by demanding money. Lastly the accused persons took some amounts along with one Hundai T.V. Set which was in his house. Hence, the FIR was lodged.

¶16

It is the case of the prosecution that after the arrest of Kiran Jaiswal, during the interrogation she disclosed that applicant/accused has masterminded the plan and, therefore, she is made accused.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that

¶18

1 Of 2

¶19

16. ABA809_2014

¶20

there is no evidence against the applicant/accused. The first informant has not taken the name of applicant/accused. Besides the statement of Kiran Jaiswal, there is nothing on record.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 opposed the Application. However, he submitted that the applicant/accused has attend the police station for interrogation.

¶22

Perused the FIR. The entire act was done by accused Kiran Jaiswal, who was arrested and released on bail. The name of this applicant/accused is not mentioned in the FIR. In view of the facts of the case and the manner in which the offence was committed, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶25

(ii) The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iii) The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating officer and shall cooperate the investigating agency.

¶27

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶28

2 Of 2

Sujata Shambaji Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujata Shambaji Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shrikrishna Khandelwal Vs M/S. S.P. Builders and Ors.

Lallasingh Pawansingh @ Karansingh S/O Gungasingh @ Rameshsingh Tak @ Sardar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhiraj Jagdish Khairmode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Azim Raine Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Shivaji Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra