Allowed

Yasmin Abdul Shakur Sayyed and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Aug 2018ABA/1582/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Single Judge confirmed the interim protection order dated 8th August, 2018, in the anticipatory bail application. The court granted bail subject to furnishing a bond and deposit of a specified sum for tampering with evidence. The application was disposed of after confirming the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 8th August 2018 confirmed; Bail granted on bond of Rs.15,000/- each with sureties; Deposit of ₹3,00,000/- confirmed.

Yasmin Abdul Shakur Sayyed and Anr. Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

rpa 1/3 26-aba-1582-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1582 OF 2018

¶4

Yasmin Abdul Shankar Sayyed & Anr. .. Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Tariq Khan, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr.A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶6

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶7

DATED : AUGUST 30, 2018.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Applicants are apprehending arrest in CR No.403 of 2018, registered on 29^th June, 2018, with Sakinaka Police Station under Sections 380, 451 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Application was heard on 8^th August, 2018, and this Court has granted interim protection to the applicants. While passing the said order, it was observed that perusal of FIR would prima facie indicate that, the same is filed on misconception of the facts and if further prima facie appears that, it is not a genuine case initiated by the first informant. It is recorded that, it appears from the FIR that there are monetary transactions between the company of the first informant and the applicants and learned

¶10

Digitally signed by RajeshriPrakash RajeshriPrakash AherDate: Aher 2018.09.03 15:44:18

¶11

0530

¶12

rpa 2/3 26-aba-1582-18.doc

¶13

counsel appearing for the applicants, on instructions, made a statement before this Court that to prove their bonafides and without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the applicants would deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Registry of this Court within the stipulate time. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants has deposited the amount, as directed by this Court in the Registry of this Court. In the circumstances, the interim order dated 8^th August, 2018, is required to be confirmed.

¶14

2 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶15

:: O R D E R ::

¶16

(i) The order dated 8^th August, 2018, passed by the this Court, is confirmed;

¶17

(ii) In the event of arrest of applicants in connection with CR No.403 of 2018, registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, each, with one or two separate local sureties in the like amount;

¶18

rpa 3/3 26-aba-1582-18.doc

¶19

(iii) Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence and/or pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iv) Applicants shall report the police station, as and when called for by the Investigating Officer;

¶21

(v) Anticipatory Bail Application No.1582 of 2018 stands disposed of.

¶22

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Yasmin Abdul Shakur Sayyed and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasmin Abdul Shakur Sayyed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Dineshbhai Tak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunny Mahadev Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Purshottam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Shyamsunder Indoria and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtara

Vishal Vitthal Shirke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yusuf Siddique Sayed and Ors. Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.