Allowed

Kaiser Jahana Rauf Sayyed and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2021ABA/2071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of an anticipatory bail application by relying on a previous interim order. The ACC noted that the applicants cooperated with the investigation, documents were seized, and the case against them is complete. The application was allowed under the existing conditions.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of in accordance with the order dated 24.09.2019, subject to conditions of cooperation with the investigating agency.

Kaiser Jahana Rauf Sayyed and Anr. Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4 aba 2071-19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2071 OF 2019

¶4

SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN

¶5

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2021.08.21 16:03:59 +0530

¶6

Kaiser Jahan Rauf Sayyed and Anr... Applicants
 V/s.
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶7

None for the Applicants.

¶8

Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
Police Inspector Sudhakar Humbe, attached to Rabodi Police Station,
Thane.

¶9

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶10

DATE : 21ST AUGUST, 2021

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. Although there is no appearance on behalf of the Applicants,

¶13

this application can be disposed of on the basis of the specific
submissions made by the learned APP on instructions from the
Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Humbe, who is present before
the Court.

¶14

2.The Applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with
investigation of Crime No. I-102 of 2019 of Rabodi Police Station,
Thane, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC are seeking
anticipatory bail.

¶15

Sneha Chavan page 1 of 3

¶16

4 aba 2071-19

¶17

3.The Applicants are the accused nos. 2 and 3. The Applicant
Kaisar happens to be the daughter of accused no.1 Faridabano Javed
Shaikh, while Applicant Rauf Sayyed is the husband of Kaisar. The
prosecution case as per the complaint lodged by Moinuddin Mohd
Shaikh Khan is that Applicants were running Bhisi (Chit fund) and
cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.17,18,000/-. According
to the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation and
the statements of other witnesses recorded, the total amount comes
to Rs.45,83,000/-.

¶18

4.The record discloses that on 24.09.2019, interim protection
was granted to the Applicants, inter alia, on the condition of
attendance. The learned APP on instructions states that the
Applicants have accordingly attended the Investigating Officer and
co-operated in the investigation. It is submitted that necessary
documents have been seized/obtained. It is submitted that partial
investigation is complete as against the present Applicants and the
chargesheet is filed and the custody of the present Applicants is not
required for the purposes of investigation.

¶19

5. In view of the specific statement made, Criminal Application is disposed of in terms of order dated 24.09.2019 subject to the

¶20

Sneha Chavan page 2 of 3

¶21

4 aba 2071-19

¶22

condition that the Applicants shall co-operate with Investigating
Agency, and as and when required and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence/ witnesses.

¶23

C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶24

Sneha Chavan page 3 of 3

Kaiser Jahana Rauf Sayyed and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaiser Jahana Rauf Sayyed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Manilal Thakrar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Kuvarji Gala and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajwinder Singh Ajit Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Liyakat Faizullah Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afroz Tasduk Qureshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.