Dismissed

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Chand v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jun 2019BA/558/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the bail application of the applicant charged with cheating. The court held the offence was serious and pre-planned, noting the applicant's intent to deceive. Bail was denied, with liberty to renew after eight months if trial has not commenced. Separate bail on medical grounds was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Liberty granted to prefer separate bail application on medical grounds.

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

¶1

40-BA-558-19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 558 OF 2019

¶4

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Chand .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Swaraj S. Jadhav for Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 19^th JUNE, 2019

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The Applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R.No. I 46 of 2018 registered with Indira Nagar Police Station, Nasik under sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR is lodged on 01/03/2018 by one Tulshidas Patil. He has mentioned in his FIR that he was knowing one Imran Khan Mehboob Khan Pathan. He was an LIC agent and was a teacher. He told the first informant that he was knowing many government officers and he was in a position to procure job for him. He, in

1 of 3

V.B.Gokhale

40-BA-558-19.odt

turn, introduced the first informant to the present applicant. On 10/07/2017, the present applicant called all such people who were interested in procuring jobs by paying money. All those people were called by the aforesaid Imran Khan at Dada Saheb Phalke Memorial at Nasik. The present applicant came there in Military uniform. Then the applicant represented to all those who were present that he had, in the past, secured jobs in the army for many people and he would do likewise for the persons who were present there. Based on this representation and believing him, the persons who had gathered there, including the first informant gave him Rs.68 lakhs. The applicant gave some blank cheques by way of security, however, neither any job was given nor those cheques were honoured nor the amount taken from those people was returned by the applicant. Hence, the FIR was lodged.

¶14

The investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed. The applicant was arrested on 23/05/2018 and since then he is in custody. The charge-sheet contains statements of the victims. From the entire charge-sheet it is quite clear that the applicant had committed this offence with an intention of cheating people right

2 of 3

V.B.Gokhale

40-BA-558-19.odt

from the inception. For the said purpose he collected huge amount and did not take any steps helping them in getting job in the army. His dishonest intention was very clear from the fact that he had come at the gathering of those people in military uniform, so that people would believe him. Thus, all these victims were cheated pursuant to pre-planed conspiracy. In this view of the matter, the offence is clearly made out. The offence is serious and the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. Application is rejected at this stage. If the trial does not commence within eight months from today, the applicant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail on merits.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is suffering from heart ailment. Liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer separate bail application on medical ground.

¶20

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶21

3 of 3

¶22

V.B.Gokhale

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Chand v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Hasnoddin Shaikh Chand 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

Sachin Murlidhar Folane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Bhanudas Ubale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kaluram Balu Pimple Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jafar Yusuf Shete Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit Machindranath Hingmire and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Tukaram Nimbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.