Allowed

Naresh Hari Nijai and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jul 2014ABA/849/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 849 of 2014, the High Court at Bombay granted pre-arrest bail to applicants charged with multiple IPC offences including sedition, conspiracy, and criminal intimidation, imposing specific conditions to prevent future offences and protect the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Grants pre-arrest bail on furnishing P.R. Bond with sureties, imposing conditions against cutting utilities, pressuring the complainant, committing offences, and requiring weekly police station attend

Naresh Hari Nijai and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

11.ABA849_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 849 OF 2014

¶5

Naresh Hari Nijai & Ors. … Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Harshad E. Palwe, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State. Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 23^rd July, 2014.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail by the applicants/accused who are facing charges under sections 153A, 120B, 509, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, which is registered at C.R. No. I-75 of 2014 with Arnala Police Station, Thane on 23^rd May, 2014.

¶10

It is the case of the first informant that original accused no. 8 broke a partitioned wall between the houses of informant and accused no. 8, so there was dispute between them. When the matter was taken up before the Gram Panchayat, accused no. 8 along with co-accused conspired and they pressurized the informant to take his complaint back. When the complainant’s wife was feeding her baby in the house, accused no. 3 entered the house, breached her privacy and threatened her that she would be paraded nude. The accused threatened the complainant and his wife that they would stop the water and electricity supply.

¶11

1 Of 3

¶12

11.ABA849_2014

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the Court cannot take cognizance under section 153A of the Indian Penal Code unless there is sanction from the Central Government. He submitted that no electricity and water supply is cut by the Gram Panchayat.

¶14

Learned APP opposed the Application. She relied on the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicants/accused. She submitted that the electricity and water connection was provided only after the matter appeared before this Court and the Court made query about it.

¶15

Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application.

¶16

Perused the FIR. In view of the nature of offence and allegations made, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicants/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) No electricity and water supply to be cut by the

¶20

Gram Panchayat at the behest of applicants/accused and

2 Of 3

11.ABA849_2014

out of vengeance.

(iii) The applicants/accused shall not pressurize the complainant and his wife.

¶25

(iv) The applicants/accused shall not commit any offence in respect of complainant and his wife.

¶26

(iii) The applicants/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Saturday between 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. till the filing of charge sheet and shall cooperate the Investigating agency.

¶27

The Application stands disposed of on above terms.

¶28

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶29

3 Of 3

Naresh Hari Nijai and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Hari Nijai and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhasini Nandkumar Borade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zakir Hussain Babaso Landage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anant Krishna Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sridevi Revappa Umkbarje and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hitesh Mahendra Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Sami Rajjab Ali Vs State of Maharashtra