Allowed

Devendra Ramesh Parekh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Dec 2018ABA/165/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the interim bail relief granted on 10th July 2018 to applicants in a fraud investigation. Noting that the Investigating Agency could not trace IP addresses due to data retention limits, the court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and directed applicants to report to the Investigating Officer as notified while the investigation continues.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail relief confirmed; applicants directed to attend Investigating Officer as notified and join the investigation process.

Devendra Ramesh Parekh and Anr. Vs the State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

aba.165-2018.doc

¶2

Dond

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2018

¶5

Devendra Rame s h Parekh & Ors. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶6

Mr. A.H.H. Ponda a/w Paras Yadav and Viraj Nalavade I/b Nalavade & Law Associates for applicant.

¶7

Ms. J.S. Lohokare, APP for State.

¶8

Mr. Debajyoti Talikdar for Intervener.

¶9

Mr. S.R.Kate, API, Lashkaar Police Station, Pune City present.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 13th December 2018.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1] By a well-reasoned Order dated 10^th July 2018, the applicants

¶13

were granted interim relief and were directed to attend the Investigating Officer on stipulated dates, to join the process of investigation.

¶14

2] Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel for the Intervener and the learned APP. Perused the record.

¶15

3] It is observed in para-6 of the Order dated 10^th July 2018, that

¶16

as of today, even according to the Investigating Officer, prima facie, there is

¶17

no material to indicate that the present applicants had forged and fabricated the said I.P. address.

¶18

1/2

¶19

aba.165-2018.doc

¶20

4] Today the learned APP on instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer submitted that Airtel Company had informed the Investigating Agency that, they preserve the data only for a period of one and not beyond it. It is therefore very difficult for the Investigating Agency to trace out I.P address allegedly used by the applicants from which funds of the informant are transferred from one account to another account.

¶21

5] Till today the Investigating Agency is not able to connect the link of applicants to the alleged crime. In view thereof, the custodial interrogation of the applicants for further investigation in the present crime is not necessary.

¶22

Interim relief granted by Order dated 10^th July 2018 is hereby confirmed. However, the applicants are directed to attend the Investigating Officer as and when called for between 10.00 a.m to 12.00 noon upon a notice in writing from the concerned Investigating Officer and to join in the process of investigation till submission of final report.

¶23

6] Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

2/2

Devendra Ramesh Parekh and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Ramesh Parekh 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

Ramesh Babulal Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yunus Jainuddin Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Nathrav Musale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akash Subhash Gunjal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Praveen Vilas Waghchore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahananda Chanayya Swami and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra