High Court allowed anticipatory bail application filed by a fruit vendor accused of theft under IPC Sections 380 and 457. Court found prosecution version prima facie doubtful and custodial interrogation unnecessary.
Application allowed and disposed of; standard bail conditions imposed including PR bond of Rs.25,000 and attendance at IO.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 of 3 919.ABA.108.2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2020
Khalid Sabeer Bagwan Tuljapure
versus
The State of Maharashtra
Applicant
Respondent
Mr.Ajit V. Atange for applicant.
Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for State.
CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 31st January 2020
PC :
1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.1287 of
2019 registered with Fauzdar Chavadi Police Station, Solapur, for
offences under Sections 380 and 457 of Indian Penal Code.
2.The prosecution case is that on 26th November 2019 the FIR
was lodged contending that the complainant had received amount
after selling the land and out of the said amount Rs.45,000/- was
kept in iron cupboard. The balance amount was kept with his
daughter. On 25th November 2019 the complainant’s sister and niece
had gone to stay with his wife who was staying in Ghongde Vasti,
Solapur. Thereafter applicant took his meal, closed the doors of
house and slept out of his house. At about 3.30 to 4 am the people
were shouting Chor-Chor. Hence he woke up. The people were
chasing the thief. The complainant went behind him. He saw a
unknown person who was running. His mobile fell down from the
pocket. It bore the photo of the applicant. He was known to the
applicant. Thereafter he saw that doors of his house were open and
2 of 3 919.ABA.108.2020.doc
the lock was lying there. He went into the house and noticed that
the cupboard was tampered and cash kept in the cupboard was
missing.
3.The applicant preferred application for anticipatory bail before
the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 18th December 2019.
4.The contention of the applicant is that he is acquainted with
the complainant as both of them are in business of at Laxmi Market.
The applicant is fruit vendor. He has no reason to commit theft. The
complainant has taken disadvantage of having mobile hand set of the
applicant in his possession. The applicant has no reason to make any
duplicate key of the lock of the applicant. The allegation of opening
the doors with the duplicate key is made intentionally to make out a
case that complainant did not hear the sound of breaking the lock.
5. Learned APP submitted that investigation is in progress.
6.The case of complainant that he was sleeping outside his house
when the accused had committed theft by opening the doors by
duplicate key. It is difficult to believe that the duplicate key was
prepared by the accused without the knowledge of complainant. The
FIR narrates that one unknown person was running from the place of
incident. The complainant was sleeping in front of his house. The
version of complainant appears to be prima facie doubtful. In the
circumstances custodial interrogation is not called for.
7. Hence, I pass following order :
3 of 3 919.ABA.108.2020.doc
ORDER
(i)Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.108 of 2020 is
allowed and disposed of;
(ii)In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with CR
No.1287 of 2019 registered with Fauzdar Chavadi Police Station,
Solapur, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in
the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii)The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer as and
when called for till filing of charge sheet.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a theft case involving doubtful prosecution version.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Khalid Sabeer Bagwan Tuljapure
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court