Allowed

Wasim Naseem Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC31 Jul 2021ABA/1459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving cruelty and dowry demands. Conditions imposed include filing a PR bond, monthly reporting to the investigating officer, cooperation with the investigation, and avoiding tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs.15,000 with sureties; required to report to IO monthly and cooperate with investigation.

Wasim Naseem Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

2 aba 1459-19=

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1459 OF 2019

¶4

Wasim Naseem Shaikh.. Applicant

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents

¶7

Mr. R.A. Shaikh a/w Sharif Khan i/b Ms. Yasmin Shaikh for the
Applicant.
Ms. Veena Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
None for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶9

DATE : 31ST JULY, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1.The Applicant apprehending arrest in connection with
investigation of Crime No. 57 of 2019 registered with Oshiwara
Police Station, Mumbai under Section 498-A, 323, 324, 328, 406,
504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, is seeking anticipatory bail.

¶12

2.The aforesaid offence has been registered on basis of the
complaint lodged by the second Respondent, who is the wife of the
Applicant. The allegations are that the Applicant was illtreating the
second Respondent physically and mentally and there was a demand

¶13

page 1 of 3

¶14

2 aba 1459-19=

¶15

for money and there was also allegation about the refusal to
handover the Stridhan.

¶16

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the
learned APP. None appears for the second Respondent, though
served. The learned Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that
Stridhan is already returned and the Applicant had co-operated with
the investigation. The record discloses that interim protection was
granted to the Applicant on 09.07.2019 inter alia on the condition
that the Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer on 16th,
17th and 18th July 2019 between 11.00 a.m. to 12 noon.

¶17

4. The learned counsel for the Applicant points out that the Applicant had accordingly reported to the Investigating Officer. The interim protection is operating for more than 2 years now.

¶18

5. Considering the over all circumstances, the following order is passed:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

i)In the event of arrest, in connection with the
investigation of Crime No. 57 of 2019 registered with Oshiwara
Police Station, Mumbai, the applicant shall be released on bail on

¶21

2 aba 1459-19=

¶22

executing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two
solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶23

ii)The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer on
first Monday of every month and as and when required by the
Investigating Agency.

¶24

iii)The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating
Agency and shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶25

evidence/witnesses.

¶26

iv)In the event of breach of any of the conditions, the bail
is liable to be cancelled.

¶27

v)The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶29

Sneha Chavan page 3 of 3

Wasim Naseem Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasim Naseem 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

Sangita Sharad Nagane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangita Sharad Nagane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sou. Anita Ramdas Magar Vs Sou. Bhagyalaxmi Prakash Mahanta and Ors.

Seema Jayabahadur Gurang Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Gangaram Hasabe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Faisal Mohamed Husain Vs the State of Maharashtra