Allowed

Iqra Adil Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Sept 2021ABA/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by accused persons in a cheating case under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary as investigation was complete and the complainant was abroad, confirming interim protection and fixing bail bond at Rs. 50,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; interim protection confirmed; release on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with sureties if arrested.

Iqra Adil Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 of 2 5.ABA.6.2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2020

¶4

Mrs.Iqra Adil Khan and anotherApplicants

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶7

Mr.Adil Khatri i/by Ms.Nazeen Adil Khatri, Advocate for applicants.
Mr.S.R.Agarkar, APP, for State.
API Prashant More, Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station, present.

¶8

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE :18th September 2021

¶9

PC :

¶10

1.The applicants are apprehending arrest in CR No.212 of 2019
registered with Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for
offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The
FIR was registered on 26-8-2019.

¶11

2.The case of the complainant is that she had invested money
with applicant no.1. Initially Rs.3 lakh was invested and in return
she received Rs.4 lakh. Thereafter there was investment of Rs.12
lakh and in return the complainant received Rs.15 lakh. Pursuant
thereto there was investigation of more amount and the complainant
had allegedly borrowed gold loan. However, subsequently the
returns were not received as promised.

¶12

3.The contention of the applicants is that there is delay in
lodging the FIR. There is no proof of amount being paid to the
applicant. There is no receipt or bill of gold. There was no gold

¶13

2 of 2 5.ABA.6.2020.doc

¶14

receipt. Hence applicant no.2 has not played any role in the
transaction. It is further submitted that the applicant were granted
interim protection vide order dated 3-1-2020. Pursuant to the said
order the applicants were arrested and they were released on bail.

¶15

4.Learned APP submitted that investigation is almost complete.
The complainant is out of India. Arrest was effected pursuant to the
interim protection granted by this Court and shortly charge sheet
would be filed against applicants.

¶16

5.Considering the factual aspects as stated above, custodial
interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. Hence, I pass
following order :

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i)Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of;
(ii)Interim protection granted vide order dated 3-1-2020 is
confirmed;

¶19

(iii)In the event of arrest of applicants in CR No.212 of 2019
registered with Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, the
applicants be released on bail on their executing PR bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶20

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶21

MST

Iqra Adil Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqra Adil Khan and Anr. 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

Pravin @ Pappu Harishchandra Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amit Balu Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shridhar Balaram Bhopi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chhaya Dharmaraj Pacharne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratik S/O Mukesh Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Himanshu Baldev Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra