Allowed

Bharat Ratnakar Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Oct 2020ABA/2546/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge held that applicant, though not in FIR, deserves anticipatory bail as his role is minimal and name added belatedly. Custody not required but cooperation with investigation directed.

What did the court decide?

Directed that if arrested, applicant shall be released on PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties in the same amount, subject to cooperation with investigation.

Bharat Ratnakar Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

 03-aba-2546-2019.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2546 OF 2019

¶5

Bharat Ratnakar Shetty.... Applicant

¶6

 Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶8

Mr. Shadab B. Khopekar for Applicant.
Mr. Swapnil S. Pednekar, APP for State/Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 16th OCTOBER, 2020

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶12

with C.R.No. 136 of 2017 registered with Charkop Police Station,
under sections 365, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

¶13

2.The FIR is lodged by one Faruk Darji on 24/03/2017.

¶14

In the FIR he has stated that, on 20/03/2017 he received a phone
call from one Sanjay Verma who was known to him. Sanjay
informed the first informant that, some persons were interested in

¶15

Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane P. Deshmane Date: 2020.10.17 14:38:09 +0530

¶16

Gokhale

¶17

1 of 5

¶18

 : 2 : 03-aba-2546-2019.odt

¶19

exchanging old currency notes worth Rs.09 crorers. On
22/03/2017 Sanjay told the informant to come at a particular
place near Amboli Naka, Andheri (W). However, their illegal
transaction could not take place because they were told that the
police were aware of their plans. On 23/03/2017, Afajal and
Bhavesh who were introduced by Sanjay met him. One more
person was with them. They started beating the informant on the
allegation that the informant had told the police about their plans.
The informant’s friend called police. Police reached there
immediately and all of them were taken to police station. At the
police station the informant, Afajal and Bhavesh settled the dispute
between themselves. By that time it was midnight. After that,
Afajal, Bhavesh and unknown person induced the informant
somewhat forcibly to accompany them for dinner. In the car they
again started beating the informant. He was taken to Sanjay
Verma’s house. He was not there. At about 3.30a.m. one Fortuner
Car came there. Four persons got down from that car. One was
named Saiba and other was Tejas. The informant came to know
about their names through their conversation. There were two

¶20

2 of 5

¶21

 : 3 : 03-aba-2546-2019.odt

¶22

others accompanying Saiba and Tejas. Their description is given in
the FIR. The informant was made to sit in the Fortuner car and
again he was beaten. Around 6.15a.m. one of them who had come
in Fortuner car gave him cigarette burns and again beat him. He
was beaten with a belt. He was taken near Andheri Criticare
Hospital. At that time, he saw a patrolling police van. He sought
their help. Accused went away from the spot. On this basis, the FIR
was lodged.

¶23

3.Heard Mr. Shabad Khopekar, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Swapnil Pednekar, learned APP for the State.

¶24

4.Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention
to an order passed by the Court of Sessions, Dindoshi in
A.B.A.No.624 of 2017 whereby one accused named Saiba was
granted anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant’s name does not appear in the FIR. At
the highest, he could be described as an unknown person who
accompanied Saiba. Saiba is granted anticipatory bail, therefore,
on the ground of parity the applicant deserves same protection.

¶25

5.Learned APP invited my attention to the

¶26

3 of 5

¶27

 : 4 : 03-aba-2546-2019.odt
supplementary statement of the first informant which is recorded
on 12/04/2017. In that statement the applicant’s name is
mentioned and the role attributed to him is that, he came in
Fortuner car with Saiba, Nilesh, Tejas and the owner of that
Fortuner car. In that supplementary statement it is mentioned that
the applicant had beaten informant with his hands and a belt.
Learned APP submitted that, specific role is attributed to the
present applicant.

¶28

6.I have considered these submissions. In the FIR, the
applicant’s name is not mentioned. Description of two unknown
persons who had came in Fortuner car along with Saiba is given.
However, on 12/04/2017 without any further explanation the
applicant’s name appears in that supplementary statement.
Obviously, this is added as an afterthought. Saiba is already
granted anticipatory bail. Hardly any significant role is attributed
to the present applicant. The applicant’s name appears to be
implicated belatedly and sufficient doubt is created about the
truthfulness of this supplementary statement. The informant’s own
conduct is not above suspicion. He himself was indulging in an

¶29

4 of 5

¶30

 : 5 : 03-aba-2546-2019.odt
illegal activity. He does not appear to be a trustworthy witness
himself. In this view of the matter, the applicant deserves
protection of anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not necessary. However, the applicant will have to
cooperate with the investigation.

¶31

7.Hence, the following order :

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No. 136 of 2017 registered with Charkop
Police Station, the applicant is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

¶34

(ii) Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station, as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶35

(iii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶37

5 of 5

Bharat Ratnakar Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Ratnakar Shetty 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

Pratik Babaso Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rakesh Vinayak Prasade Vs the State of Maharashstra

Vasiulla Istekar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Majahar Abdul Karim Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhagwan Pamnani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aslam Jalil Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra