Held that bail granted by Sessions Court should not be cancelled as respondents are cooperating with prosecution, investigation lacunas cannot be attributed to them, and framing of charges negates need for interrogation.
Application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail stands rejected.
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.
1 28.294.13 appln
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 294 OF 2013
Mohd. Maqbool Mohd Shoib Shaikh
.....Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and others
....Respondents
Mr. S. R. Gaud for Applicant Ms. Naima Shaikh for Respondent nos 2 & 3 Mr. A. S. Shitole APP for the State.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 12, 2014
PC :
granted in favour of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 by Sessions Judge vide Order dated 15/06/2013. F.I.R. is dated 27/04/2013. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 10/11/2013. Present application is filed on 25/06/2013. On the last occasion i.e. on 10/02/2014, when this matter came up for the first time before this Court, (Coram: Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.) it was submitted by respondent nos. 2 & 3 that charge-sheet is filed on 10/11/2013.
ism
2 28.294.13 appln
was framed on 07/01/2014. It was only thereafter that complainant had taken steps to obtain the copy of charge-sheet and has obtained the copy. The compilation of the charge-sheet consists of F.I.R. only. The list of witnesses includes complainant, neighbour of the applicant namely Abdul Rauf & Investigating Officer.
ism
3 28.294.13 appln
applicant herein lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that his father happens to be the owner of room no. 92 of Janta Sevak Society as he has purchased the same from one Eknath Gaikwad. Applicant resides in room
no. 91 6 months prior to lodging of the F.I.R., but he has received the electricity bill of room no. 92 which was in the name of one Nazma Siraj Shaikh i.e. repsondent no. 2. He filed an application under the Right to Information Act and it was revealed that certain documents have been forged by present respondent no. 2 to show that she is the owner of room no. 92. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the said documents were forged to show the ownership of room no. 92 only to avail the privileges and facilities under the Slum Rehabilitation Act. On the basis of his report, offence was registered against present respondent nos 2 & 3.
ism
4 28.294.13 appln
for the applicant submits that applicant does not know as to who is Yasmeen Ashraf but the same does not appear in the F.I.R. for the reasons best know to the applicant. Learned Sessions Judge had observed that photo pass was cancelled by B.M.C. The photo pass issued in the name of respondent was cancelled by B.M.C. Sessions Court had observed that case rests upon documentary evidence and the prosecution may take custody of documents from the concerned officers and therefore was of the opinion that custodial interrogation would be unwarranted and unjustified.
ism
5 28.294.13 appln
O R D E R
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
ism
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be cancelled in presence of lacunas in investigation and interrogation needs.
Whether parameters for grant of bail differ from cancellation of bail after framing of charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maruti Navale V/s State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶27
Maruti Navale V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 All M.R. Criminal 3747
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Maqbool Mohd Shoib Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
Nazma Siraj Shaikh
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
