Disposed

Anil S/O. Jagdish Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Aug 2017APPLN/3439/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court disposed of a plea for quashing an FIR and extension of bail. The judge held that since the offence under Section 465 IPC is bailable and non-cognizable, the application for pre-arrest bail loses significance, directing the applicant to approach the Magistrate for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of; applicant directed to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail.

Anil S/O. Jagdish Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

14 appln.3439.17.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

14 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3439 OF 2017

¶5

ANIL S/O. JAGDISH AGRAWAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni. APP for Respondent : Mr. A. P. Basarkar. Advocate to assist APP : Ms. Monica Dhat.

¶7

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATE : 28^th August, 2017.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

. The learned counsel for Applicant has placed on record the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Application No.3077 of 2017 filed by the present Applicant. The present Applicant has filed the said criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR registered as C.R. No.418 of 2017 at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. In paragraph No.9 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed that neither Section 420 nor Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted in the given set of allegations. However, in paragraph No.12 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed that the act of the present Applicant / original Accused No.2 falls under the definition of forgery under Section 463 punishable under

¶10

¶11

14 appln.3439.17.odt

¶12

Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2 The learned counsel for Applicant submits that the offence of forgery under Section 463 is made punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code with the imprisonment, which may extend to two years or with fine. The learned counsel submits that Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code is bailable and non-cognizable offence.

¶14

3 In view of the above, this criminal application seeking prearrest bail losses its significance. The Applicant may approach the learned Magistrate for seeking regular bail. The learned counsel for the Applicant, however, submits that the interim pre-arrest bail may be extended for a further period of two weeks since there is an apprehension in the mind of the Applicant that he would be arrested by the Investigating Officer in connection with the present crime. Since the offence punishable under Section 465 is non-cognizable and bailable one, the Investigating Officer cannot effect the arrest of the Applicant without the permission of the Magistrate and in case if the arrest is effected, he is bound to release the Applicant on bail.

¶15

4 The criminal application is accordingly disposed of.

¶16

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]

¶17

ndm

Anil S/O. Jagdish Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O. Jagdish Agrawal 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

Samir Hasraj Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxmibai Gangadhar Kamble and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Kondaji Rokade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ahmed S/O. Isak Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Sambhshiv Bompelwar. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak @ Gajanan S/O. Kishanrao Narlawar Vs the State of Maharashtra