Allowed

Nihal Idris Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Aug 2018ABA/904/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An anticipatory bail application filed by husband and in-laws in offences under IPC Sections 498A, 354, 323, 406, and 34. The High Court allowed the application, confirmed an interim order, and directed bail on bond if arrested.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; interim order confirmed; enlargable on bail via PR bond of Rs. 10,000 each with sureties if arrested.

Nihal Idris Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 18-aba-904.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 904 OF 2018

¶4

Nihal Idris Shaikh and others … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Aniket Vagal for Applicants. Mrs. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State.

¶6

Mr. Pranit Pawar i/b Mr. Nilesh Dave and Karan Mertia for Intervener.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 20^th AUGUST, 2018.

¶8

P. C.:

¶9

This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with

¶10

C.R. No.83 of 2018 registered with R.C.F. Police Station, Mumbai

¶11

for offences under Section 498(A), 354, 323, 406, 34 of IPC.

¶12

The applicant No.1 is the husband of complainant and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are in-laws and applicant No.4 is minor brother-in-law of the complainant. This Court, by order dated 2^nd

¶13

May, 2018 granted interim protection to the applicants and the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to report investigating officer

¶14

of concerned police station on 7^th and 8^th May, 2018. The FIR was

1 of 3

Shridhar Sutar

2 18-aba-904.18.doc

lodged on 8^th March, 2018 by the complainant. The complainant has alleged the harassment caused to her and retention of ornaments belonging to her. The marriage between the complainant and applicant No.1 was solemnised on 22^nd April, 2017. It appears that there are no chances of settlement between the parties as submitted by the Advocate representing both the sides. In accordance with order dated 2^nd May, 2018, the applicants have attended the police station. Learned APP submitted that the residential premises of the applicants were searched during the course of investigation, but nothing could be recovered. Learned Advocate for intervener submits that the ornaments belonging to the complainant could not be recovered during the course of investigation. However, as stated by learned APP, the applicants have attended the police station and during the search nothing could be recovered from them.

¶19

Taking into consideration aforesaid circumstances and considering the investigation carried out by the police, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. Hence, I pass the following order.

2 of 3

Shridhar Sutar

3 18-aba-904.18.doc

O R D E R

(i) Anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶25

(ii) The interim order dated 2^nd May, 2018 is confirmed.

¶26

(iii) In the event of arrest, the applicants be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/each with one or more sureties each in the like amount.

¶27

(iv) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation.

¶28

Application stands disposed of.

¶29

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶30

Shridhar Digitally signed byShridhar Marutirao Marutirao SutarDate: 2018.08.23 Sutar 15:06:36 +0530

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

Shridhar Sutar

Nihal Idris Shaikh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nihal Idris Shaikh and Ors. 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

Mukeshbhai Balabhai Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukesh Popatlal Gada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinit Ramkrishna Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Asif Niyaz Siddiqui Vs the State of Maharasthra

Royston Victor Saldanha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilam Ramesh Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra