Allowed

Almaa Aala Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Dec 2021ABA/195/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, who was alleged to have been a beneficiary of money from the original accused in a cheating case. The court allowed the application based on a settlement between parties and lack of need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection confirmed; applicant released on bail upon arrest upon furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 20,000/- with sureties and complying with investigation conditions.

Almaa Aala Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

aba 195.20.doc

¶2

Ingale

¶3

Digitally signed URMILA by URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2021.12.04 16:53:31 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2020

¶6

Smt. Almaa Aala Khan .. Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ---------------------

¶7

Ms.Roshni Jitendra Singh, for applicant. Mr. N.B. Patil, for the respondent. Mr. Dayanand Jadhav, API, L.T.Marg Police Station present.

¶8

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2021

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. This is an application for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant – Smt. Almaa Aala Khan. The applicant is the benefciary through original accused No.1 and other accused. The allegation against the original accused No.1 is that they deceived the complainant for Rs. 49 lakhs received by the informant through courier. The accused went to the ofce of the informant and gave a token of Rs. 10/- as per the custom of transfer money and received amount of Rs. 49 lakhs. (In the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the amount written as Rs. 49/-). Therefore the complaint

¶12

1/4

¶13

aba 195.20.doc

¶14

was lodged by Mr.Tushar Shankarlal Thakkar in L.T. Marg Police Station. On the basis of the complaint, L.T. Marg Police Station registered the C.R.No. 356 of 2019 under section 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused no.1 – Anurodh Mahendranath Sharma fled bail application 3142 of 2019 before the Sessions Court. It is alleged that the accused no.1 parted with sum of Rs. 12 lakhs in favour of the present applicant. The applicant who is the benefciary was later arraigned as accused.

¶15

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that she is not named in the FIR. Learned APP opposed the application and submitted that substantial sum of money is yet to be recovered from the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP. It is alleged that from the amount of Rs. 49 lakhs which is subject matter of the deceit, amount of Rs. 12 lakhs was received by the applicant. The order of rejection of pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge records that amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was recovered out of amount of Rs.12 lakhs from the house of the applicant. Further, amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was re-deposited by the applicant in the account of accused no.1. Learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application indicated that the amount of

¶17

2/4

¶18

aba 195.20.doc

¶19

Rs. 5 lakhs is yet to be recovered from the applicant which is not possible without her custodial interrogation.

¶20

The order dated 13/01/2020 which granted bail to the accused no.1 is placed on record. It is pertinent to reproduce paragraph 8 of the said order which forms the basis of releasing the accused no.1 on bail by the Sessions Court. It reads thus :

¶21

“ 8. Perused the FIR and submissions from the both the sides. During the course of hearing of this application, complainant Tushar Thakkar through his advocate appeared before me and fled afdavit vide Eex . 5 contending that he and accused have decided to settle their dispute out of Court and he has no objection of releasing the accused in this Case. Considering the contents of afdavit and submissions of learned Advocate from both the sides. Hence, I answer point nos. 1 and 2 accordingly.”

¶22

The custody is sought to recover the balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs. It is the specifc case that applicant is the benefciary of Rs. 12 lakhs paid to her by the original accused no.1. Out of the said amount, sum of Rs. 7 lakhs has already been recovered. The complainant indicated his no objection to grant bail to the accused no.1 as they decided to settle the matter. The applicant is a woman and no criminal antecedents are reported against her. Considering the totality of the

¶23

3/4

¶24

aba 195.20.doc

¶25

circumstances, in my opinion, as the applicant is granted interim protection by this Court since 23/01/2020, I do not fnd this to be a case where custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, the following order.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

i) The interim order stands confrmed.

¶28

ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R. No. 356 of 2019 registered with L.T. Marg Police Station, she shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶29

iii) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and report to the Investigation Ofcer as and when called.

¶30

iv) The applicant shall furnish the particulars of his place of residence and contact details to the Investigating Ofcer of the Police Station concerned within seven days from today.

¶31

v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶32

The application is disposed of.

¶33

4/4

Almaa Aala Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Almaa Aala Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Advent India Pe Advisors Private Limited Vs the Union of India through Secretary and Anr.

Avik Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Union of India (through the Secretary) and 5 Others

Anu Product Ltd. Vs Union of India (through the Secretary) Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Amit Bholanath Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrirang Pandurang Kank Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra