Allowed

Jagdish I. Yadav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Oct 2015BA/2006/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Indian High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision while allowing a bail application for applicants accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Court granted bail noting the applicants were in a different vehicle than the one involved in the incident.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on bail upon executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000 each with sureties, attending police station periodically, and refraining from tampering with witnesses.

Jagdish I. Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

BA 2006-15.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2006 OF 2015

¶5

1. Jagdish I. Yadav .Applicants

¶6

2. Zulfikar Gulam Hussain Shaikh

¶7

 v/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶9

Ms Nazima Y. Malik (Siddique), Advocate, for the
Applicants

¶10

Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶11

CORAM:REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶12

DATE :17.10.2015

¶13

P.C.

¶14

.Heardlearnedcounselforthe

¶15

applicants and the learned APP for the
respondent – State.

¶16

2.By this application, the applicants

¶17

seek their enlargement on bail in connection

¶18

with C.R.No.49 of 2015 registered with the

¶19

Domestic Airport Santacruz Police Station,

¶20

Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable

¶21

1 of 6

¶22

BA 2006-15.doc

¶23

under Sections 170, 341 & 396 of the Indian
Penal Code.

¶24

3.The incident in question has taken

¶25

place on 28.08.2015. It is alleged by the
complainant that on the said date at about 11.10
p.m., four persons came in an Innova Car and
obstructed his vehicle from proceeding towards
the Cargo area. According to the complainant,
the said persons disclosed to him that they were
Sales Tax officers and pulled the mobile of the
complainant's friend. It is alleged that the
said persons attempted to take the Gold articles
which were kept in the complainant's Car.

¶26

4.Learned counsel for the applicants

¶27

states that the allegations are against the
accused, who were in the Innova Car and not

¶28

against the present applicants, who were in a
Swift Car. She submits that admittedly, even

¶29

2 of 6

¶30

BA 2006-15.doc

¶31

according to the prosecution, the present
applicants were not in the Innova Car but in the
Swift Car. She submits that the complainant has
not disclosed anything about the persons present
in the Swift Car or about a Swift Car in the FIR

¶32

nor has he given the description of the persons
in the Swift Car. She submits that the
complainant has not attributed any overt act to
the persons in the Swift Car in the commission
of the offences.

¶33

5.Learned APP does not dispute the fact
that the applicant were not in the Innova Car.
He submits that although in the FIR, there is no
mention of a Swift Car or about the persons
present in the Swift Car, subsequently, the
complainant has disclosed that there was a Swift
Car.

¶34

6.Perused the papers. It is not disputed

¶35

3 of 6

¶36

BA 2006-15.doc

¶37

that the said persons were not in the Innova Car

¶38

and were not amongst the persons who got down
from the Innova Car and ran towards the
complainant. Considering the nature of
allegations against the applicants and the fact
that the applicants have been in custody since
their arrest i.e. 07.09.2015, the applicants are
enlarged on bail on the following terms &

¶39

conditions :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The applicants be enlarged on bail, on

¶42

executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-
each with one or two sureties in the like
amount;

¶43

(ii) The applicants shall attend the

¶44

Domestic Airport Santacruz Police Station,
Mumbai on every Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to
12:00 noon till the filing of the charge-sheet;

¶45

(iii) The applicants shall not tamper or

¶46

attempt to influence or contact the complainant,

¶47

4 of 6

¶48

BA 2006-15.doc

¶49

witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶50

(iv) The applicants shall inform their

¶51

latest place of residence and mobile contact
number immediately after being released
and/or change of residence or mobile details,
if any, from time to time to the Court seized
of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the concerned Police Station;

¶52

(v) The applicants to cooperate with the
conduct of the trial;

¶53

(vi) If there is a breach of any of the

¶54

aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to seek cancellation of the
applicants' bail.

¶55

7.The Application is allowed in the
aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶56

8. It is made clear that the observations

¶57

made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court

¶58

shall decide the case on its own merits, in

¶59

5 of 6

¶60

BA 2006-15.doc accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶61

All concerned to act on the

¶62

authenticated copy of this order.

¶63

 (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶64

6 of 6

Jagdish I. Yadav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish I. Yadav and Anr. 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

Parvez Dawood Ali Sheikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Seema Sandip Chandra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Vibhishan Dain and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharda Bansi Sahu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Annaso Gotkhinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Tulsappa Vanjole Vs the State of Maharashtra