Allowed

Sapna Mordekar @ Sapna Pai Fondekar. v. the State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2015CRMAB/91/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa granted limited protection against arrest regarding a criminal complaint for thirty days. The applicant, a lawyer, sought bail for alleged offences occurring outside Goa. The court cited a Division Bench ruling confirming jurisdiction over such applications and imposed standard conditions including cooperation with the investigation agency.

What did the court decide?

Limited protection granted; applicant released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety.

Sapna Mordekar @ Sapna Pai Fondekar. Vs the State of Goa… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

CRMAB 91/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 91 OF 2015

¶5

SAPNA MORDEKAR @ SAPNA PAI FONDEKAR.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

THE STATE OF GOA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR.,

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

¶11

Shri Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S.R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 1.

¶12

CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶13

DATE:- 16th APRIL, 2015

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

Heard Shri Menezes, learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶16

This application is filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

The brief facts are that the applicant is a legal practitioner at Panaji, Goa. The applicant alongwith her mother,

¶18

CRMAB 91/2015

¶19

¶20

Mamta Mordekar are the owners of a flat situated at Borivali, Mumbai. According to the applicant, the said flat was given on license to one Bhupesh Talpade from 01.02.2015. However, some dispute arose between the owners and the licensee which has given rise to an incident which is said to have occured on 14.04.2015. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Bhupesh Talpade, an offence at C.R. No. 191/2015 is registered against the applicant and her mother under Sections 452, 427, 504, 506 and 323 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and investigation is stated to be in progress. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection of the said crime. According to the applicant, the licensee-Bhupesh Talpade had agreed to vacate the flat and when the applicant had gone to the residential premises, it was the wife of the complainant-Bhupesh Talpade, who had physically and orally abused the applicant. Be that as it may, according to the applicant, she has been falsely implicated on account of the dispute relating to the license of the flat.

¶21

I have considered the circumstances and the submissions made, as also the nature of the offences said to be

¶22

CRMAB 91/2015

¶23

¶24

registered against the applicant. The offences are not punishable in excess of seven years of imprisonment. The applicant is a permanent resident of Margao and has undertaken to co-operate with the Investigating Agency as and when required. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant would approach the competent Court for protection for obtaining appropriate order and in the meantime prays for protection. It is submitted that the applicant has a infant child, and could not immediately approach the competent Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.K. Nayar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , reported in 1985 Cri.L.J. 1887 has inter alia held that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such an application even if the offences are said to have been committed outside the State.

¶25

In such circumstances, limited protection can be granted to the applicant to approach the competent Court. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶26

(a) In the event of arrest in connection with the investigation of C.R. No. 191/2015 of Borivali Police Station, the applicant shall be released on

¶27

CRMAB 91/2015

¶28

¶29

bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶30

(b) The applicant shall not interfere with the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence/witnesses.

¶31

¶32

(d) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency as and when required.

¶33

(e) This order shall remain in force till 24.04.2015, on expiry of which, it shall come to an end automatically.

¶34

(f) It is made clear that the competent Court will decide the application, if any filed in this regard on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations, herein made.

¶35

¶36

The application stands disposed of.

¶37

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶39

Sapna Mordekar @ Sapna Pai Fondekar. v. the State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapna Mordekar @ Sapna Pai Fondekar. v. the State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Yeshwant Pednekar, Presently Is Sub-Jail, Sada, Vasco Da Gama Thr. Shri Shailesh Y. Pednekar. Vs State, through the Incharge of Porvorim Police Station and Anr.

Mrs. Agnes Fernandes. Vs State, Public Prosecutor High Court of Bombay at Panaji and Anr.

Shri. Rohidas Harischandra N. Shirodkar (Deceased) through Lr'S Vs Shri. Devrai Sagun Bandodkar and 3 Ors.

Mr. Vishant Satyavijay Naik Rep. through His Next Friend Mrs. Vidhya Vishant Naik Vs Shri Shreyans Kumar Jain and Anr.

Mrs. Flossy Fernandes and Anr., Vs State, through Pp and Anr.

Dr. Vijayraj R. Dessai, P.C. in Judicial Custody, Sub Jail Sada., Vs State Thr. Pp Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) and Anr.