Single judge rejected anticipatory bail application. Court held that fear of being taken to police station regarding alleged illegal goods constituted legal injury under IPC. Bail denied due to apprehension of tampering with evidence and necessity of interrogation.
Pre-arrest bail application rejected and application dismissed.
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.
9-aba-1055-2015.doc
Vishal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1055 OF 2015
Nadeemuddin Aliuddin ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. N.R. Bubna, for the Applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for Respondent – State. IO. Mr. S.P. Gaikwad (PSI), Pawar-wadi police station, Malegaon present.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JULY 27, 2015
P.C.:
. The application is moved for pre arrest bail as the
applicant/accused is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386 and 341 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in
C.R. No. 62 of 2015 registered with Pawar Wadi police station, Tal. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.
June, 2015 that on 16th June, 2015 when his truck was going with
1 / 7
9-aba-1055-2015.doc
some goods from Manmad, the applicant/accused along with coaccused intercepted the said truck with their XUV car without having any number plate. The applicant/accused and other three persons told the driver of the truck to give money as ‘ gutkha ’ was transporting in the said truck. The driver therefore called the complainant who was the owner of the truck. The complainant went on the spot and noticed that the applicant/accused and other three persons who are the residents of Malegaon were present there. He knew them by name. At that time, the applicant/accused demanded cash of Rs. 40 lacs from the complainant or otherwise he would take the said truck to the police station as the complainant was transporting gutkha. The complainant agreed to the said demand as he was under fear to go to the police station and he called his one friend named Abdul Aziz with money. Abdul Aziz came on the spot and then went to his house along with one of the co-accused and handed over the amount of Rs. 15 lacs to one Arif who is one of the co-accused and he then informed the applicant/accused that he had received money and therefore they all went away. The first information report was given by the complainant after six days of the incident and then the offence was registered.
2 / 7
9-aba-1055-2015.doc
submitted that it is a false case against the applicant/accused. He is a a Corporater in Malegaon. The applicant/accused is falsely implicated due to political rivalry. One Sunil Gaikwad, a brother in law of the complainant was contesting the election for Dy. Mayor of Malegaon Corporation and in that election he lost by one vote because of the absence of applicant/accused. He further submitted that if at all there was no gutkha in the truck, there was no reason for the complainant to succumb the demand of Rs. 40 lacs and pay Rs. 15 lacs to the applicant/accused and his associates.
3 / 7
9-aba-1055-2015.doc
to body of the complainant, then under such circumstances, the offence under sections either 384 and 386 is not committed by the applicant/accused. He further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required as the offence is not taken place at all. No money has transferred in the case. He further submitted that the allegations made are manipulated as first information report is given after six days of the incident. He further submitted that the complainant is a influential person and there was no reason for him to get scared of the applicant/accused of going to police station and he is in the transportation business. He further submitted that if at all there would have been gutkha in the truck, he was only a transporter and there was no reason for him to be scared of police.
4 / 7
9-aba-1055-2015.doc
panchanamas at the instance of the five co-accused. He submitted that till today Rs. 1,87,500/- were recovered at the instance of five accused.
5 / 7
9-aba-1055-2015.doc
6 / 7
9-aba-1055-2015.doc
The statement of Abdul Aziz discloses that he went and brought cash of Rs. 15 lacs and handed over to one of the co-accused. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that there was a political rivalry and as the applicant/accused did not vote to one Sunil Gaikwad who was the brother in law of the complainant, it can not give weightage at this stage. The learned prosecutor pointed out that election has taken place six months prior of lodging the complaint. There is a delay of six days in lodging the complaint. However, it appears that the complainant was in double mind to give first information report or not which caused six days delay. It may be because of the circumstances as mentioned above. Thus custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is necessary.
bail to the applicant/accused. Hence, the application is rejected.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
7 / 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the apprehension of being taken to the police station regarding objectionable goods amounts to legal injury sufficient for an offence of extortion under section 384 Indian Penal Code.
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary given the prima facie case and recovery of funds from co-accused.
Whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report and political rivalry allegations justify granting pre-arrest bail.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Nadeemuddin Aliuddin
The State of Maharashtra
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
