Dismissed

Sabina Ibrahim Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jul 2019ABA/319/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dealt with an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC (implied).The court denied pre-arrest bail regarding cheating allegations under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 34 IPC, finding the applicant's role unfit for bail. The order is prima facie and does not affect future trial court decisions.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail rejected and dismissed.

Sabina Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

aba.319.19.919.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPTORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 319 OF 2019

¶3

Sabina Ibrahim Shaikh ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶4

Mr. Abdul Hafeez I/b Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan for the Applicant

¶5

Mr. S. V. Gavand, A.P.P for the Respondent-State

¶6

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. FRIDAY, 5th JULY 2019

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2 By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 130 of 2018 registered with the R.C.F. Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

3 Perused the papers. According to the complainant-Shobha

¶11

Haldar, the applicant and her husband induced her to part with a sum of

1/3

SQ Pathan

aba.319.19.919.doc

Rs. 5,50,000/- with an assurance that premises would be provided to the complainant and her daughter. According to the complainant, the applicant was present along with her husband, when false representations were made to her. The complainant has also alleged that the applicant herself showed certain documents in respect of another allotment, with the intent of gaining her confidence. Admittedly, the property/flat in MHADA could not have been allotted by the applicant or her husband, inasmuch as, they had nothing to do with the said MHADA flat. The material on record clearly shows that the applicant and her husband induced the complainant to part with Rs. 5,50,000/-, after promising to give her a flat in MHADA.

¶16

4 Leanred A.P.P states that investigation is in progress as to whether apart from the complainant, other persons have been cheated by the applicant.

¶17

5 Considering the role of the applicant, this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant. The application is rejected.

2/3

SQ Pathan

aba.319.19.919.doc

6 It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding this application. If an application for regular bail is filed, the trial Court shall decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶22

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶23

3/3

¶24

SQ Pathan

Sabina Ibrahim Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabina Ibrahim Shaikh 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

Ganpatrai Shivram Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangesh Chotu Lodhi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh @ Ganya Manikrao Sadavarte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shobha Ramdas Patil@Sneha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandankumar Jamuna Ram Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munawar Anwar Syed Vs the State of Maharashtra