Disposed

Liyakat Faizullah Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2021ABA/2091/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application without appearing for the applicants. Relying on the APP’s statement that investigation is complete and applicants have cooperated, the Court ordered them to be released as per interim conditions, subject to future cooperation and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of on terms that applicants shall continue to cooperate with investigating agency and shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Liyakat Faizullah Khan and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

8-aba-2091-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2091 OF 2019

¶4

Liyakat Faizullah Khan & Anr. ..Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶5

None for the Applicants. Mr. Y. Y. Dabke, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Hemraj G. Borse, PSI Yellow Gate Police Station present.

¶6

MAMTA Digitally signedby MAMTA AMAR AMAR KALEDate: KALE 2021.08.2116:18:49 +0530

¶7

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J. DATE : 21 August 2021

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. Although there is no appearance on behalf of the Applicants, this Application can be disposed of on the basis of a statement made by the learned APP on instructions from the Investigating Officer who is present before the Court.

¶10

The Applicants apprehending arrest in Crime No.19/2019 Police Station Yellow Gate, under Section 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, are seeking anticipatory bail.

¶11

Mamta Kale page 1 of 3

¶12

8-aba-2091-2019

¶13

The prosecution case is that Complainant Iqbal Qureshi is in the business of sell and purchase of fish. He was acquainted with the Applicants as the Applicant Imtiyaz Ali Khan is dealing in fish under the name and style as ‘Laraib Sea Food’. According to the Complainant, one year prior to the date of incident, he had purchased fish to the tune of Rs.2.5 Crores from the Applicants. Out of the said amount, Rs.2,70,000/- was outstanding to be paid by the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that six months prior to the incident, the Applicant Imtiyaz Ali Khan had taken over custody of a Duster Car bearing No.GJ10-BG-5389 belonging to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the car was worth Rs.6 Lakhs. The incident in question is alleged to have happened on 29 August 2019 at about 15.30 hours when the Complainant was taking lunch in the Sukh Sagar Canteen at Mumbai wherein the Applicants are alleged to have assaulted the Complainant demanding the balance amount.

¶14

The record discloses that on 26 September 2019, interim protection, was granted to the Applicants, interalia on condition of attendance. This Application was adjourned in order to enable the Investigating Officer to verify the record of the R.T.O. to ascertain whether the Duster Car was transferred by the Complainant himself. Today, the learned APP has pointed out the statement of one Uttam Bafna who states that he has purchased said Duster Car from the Complainant for an amount

¶15

page 2 of 3

¶16

8-aba-2091-2019

¶17

of Rs.2 Lakhs and the said amount is transferred to the Complainant via RTGS.

¶18

Learned APP, on instructions, states that said car has also been transferred in the name of purchaser Uttam Bafna in the records of the R.T.O. He also points out that the injuries sustained by the Complainant are simple in nature and the investigation is substantially complete. Learned APP also points out that the Applicants have attended as per the condition of the interim order dated 26 September 2019 and have co-operated with the Investigating Agency. It is submitted that the custody of the Applicants is not required.

¶19

In that view of the matter, the Criminal Application is disposed of in terms of the order dated 26 September 2019 subject to the condition that the Applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency as when required and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence / witnesses.

¶20

C.V. BHADANG, J.

Liyakat Faizullah Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liyakat Faizullah 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

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

Sunil Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

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