Allowed

Firoz Aslam Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Apr 2018APPP/70/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the applicant's application for extension of anticipatory bail protection. Directed the applicant to furnish the required bond and sureties within two weeks and comply with reporting conditions. Disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to furnish bond and sureties within two weeks and comply with reporting conditions; matter disposed.

Firoz Aslam Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

APPP 70-18.doc

¶2

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 70 OF 2018 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 940 OF 2011

¶4

Firoz Aslam Khan .Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶7

Mr. M. I. Sheikh, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs. A. A. Takalkar, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶8

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 11.04.2018

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

By this Application, the Applicant seeks protection for a period of four weeks.

¶12

At the outset, learned counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to amend. Leave granted to enable the Applicant to comply with the condition of the Order dated 25.11.2011.

¶13

Perused the papers. The Applicant was granted Anticipatory

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

APPP 70-18.doc

¶16

Bail by this Court ( Coram : R. C. Chavan, J. ) vide Order dated

¶17

25.11.2011 on the Applicant furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs. 1,00,000/- on certain other conditions. The said Order i. e. the Order dated 25.11.2011 was confirmed by this Court ( Coram : R. C. Chavan, J. ) vide Order dated 04.01.2012. It is a matter of record that the Applicant had applied for modification of the said Order dated 25.11.2011 and this Court ( Coram : P. D. Kode, J. ) vide Order dated 28.01.2015 passed in Misc. Appln. No. 62 of 2013 was pleased to reject the said Application seeking modification of the Order dated 25.11.2011 and directed that the Applicant be arrested.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was in his village during the period 2015 till date, as he was unwell. The Applicant has filed medical documents in support of the same. The Applicant is now ready to furnish sureties as directed by this Court vide Order dated 25.11.2011.

¶19

Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the Applicant shall complete the process of furnishing P. R.Bond in the sum of Rs.

¶20

1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

APPP 70-18.doc

¶23

Rs. 1,00,000/-, as directed by this Court vide Order dated 25.11.2011, within two weeks from today. The Applicant shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station on 18^th to 20^th April, 2018 between 10.00 a. m. and 12.00 noon and thereafter, as & when called for by the investigating officer. The Applicant shall also inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station.

¶24

Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.

¶25

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Firoz Aslam Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Aslam Khan 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

Manoj @ Pappu Thakur Vs the State of Maharashra and Anr.

Abdul Hakim Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tejas Ramesh Bakale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharafat Yarmohammed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Majid Kazi @ Ganna Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dean (Daniel) Peter Pereira Vs the State of Maharashtra