Allowed

Riyaz Ahmad S/O. Abdul Razzak and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. of Police Station Dhantoli Nagpur City

Bombay HC15 Jun 2017ABA/773/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought pre-arrest bail in a fraud case regarding misuse of a government medical scheme. The court granted bail on the condition of furnishing security and surety after examining no threat to investigation. The application was allowed with specific bail terms.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing cash security of Rs. Seventy Five Thousand each and one solvent surety in the like amount for each applicant.

Riyaz Ahmad S/O. Abdul Razzak and Another Vs the State of… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 aba773.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 773 OF 2016

¶4

(RIYAZ AHMAD ABDUL RAZZAK & ANR...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. DHANTOLI, NAGPUR CITY)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

- - - - Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicants. Shri M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

¶9

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J. DATED : JUNE 15, 2017.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The applicants, apprehending arrest in crime registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have sought pre-arrest bail. The accusations against the applicants (father and son) are that the applicant No.1 has availed benefit under Rajeev Gandhi Jeevandayee Arogya Yojna for his cardiac surgery, though he was not eligible for it.

¶12

According to the Investigating Agency, the applicant No.1 is a retired government servant and his annual income is more than the limit up to which the facilities under this scheme can be availed. According to the Investigating Agency, because of the illegal claim by the applicants, the government and the hospital are cheated of Rs.1,27,500/-.

¶13

The applicants have stated that they are not involved in any other crime/ offence earlier. This Court has

¶14

2 aba773.16

¶15

granted interim protection to the applicants by order dated 24^th November, 2016. The Investigating Agency has not complained that the applicants have misused the interim protection granted by this Court. The Investigating Agency has not pointed out that the custody of the applicants is required for further investigation.

¶16

In the above facts, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled for pre-arrest bail, however, on the condition imposed by this Court.

¶17

Hence, the following order:

¶18

In the event of arrest in Crime No. 277 of 2016, registered by the non-applicant, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. Seventy Five Thousand each with one solvent surety in the like amount for each of the applicant.

¶19

The application is allowed in the above terms.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

RRaut ..

Riyaz Ahmad S/O. Abdul Razzak and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. of Police Station Dhantoli Nagpur City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaz Ahmad S/O. Abdul Razzak and Another v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. of Police Station Dhantoli Nagpur City

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

Sachin Deorao Bagade Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Imambada Nagpur

Mukesh S/O. Ramesh Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Nandgaon Peth, Amravati

Duryodhan S/O. Tarachand Hedao Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Police Station Dawniwada Dist. Gondia

Mr. Janardhan S/O. Arvind Parulekar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, City Kotwali Police Station Amravati

Sau. Kalawati W/O. Waman Dambare Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Durgapur Chandrapur

M/S Yashoda Hybrid Seeds, through Its Director, Shri. Shankar S/O Diwanji Pawde Vs M/S Satpal Traders, Proprietor Shri. Satpal Hasani S/O Keshav Hasani