Mohammad Saiem @ Bapu Asim Qureshi (Bepari) v. the State of Maharashtra
Bombay HCABA/166/2020
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant accused of theft of a bullock. The court held that prima facie involvement was disclosed due to the sale of the bullock and custodial interrogation was necessary.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
1 of 2 920.ABA.166.2020.doc
¶2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
¶3
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2020
¶4
Mohammad Saiem @ Bapu Asim Qureshi (Bepari)Applicant
versus
¶5
The State of MaharashtraRespondent
¶6
Mr.Ashwinikumar Devere /by Aaditya A. Gore for applicant.
Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP, for State.
¶7
CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
¶8
DATE : 31st January 2020
¶9
PC :
¶10
1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.272 of
2019 registered with Otur Police Station, Junnar, for offence under
Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
¶11
2.The complaint was lodged on 14th November 2019 by one
Omkar Mande alleging that the bullock belonging to him was
missing on 31st October 2019. He thought that some person must
have committed theft of the bullock.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in an application where prima facie involvement in the offence of theft is disclosed.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- applicant
Mohammad Saiem @ Bapu Asim Qureshi
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
AI extract
Prakash D. Naik
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court