Salman Salim Gondalwala Vs the State of Maharashtra

3- ABA-402-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 402 OF 2021

¶4

Salman Salim Gondalwala… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Rajendra Rathod i/b. Ali Bubere, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶8

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 5th MARCH, 2021

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1.The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No.76 of
2020 registered with Byculla Police Station, Mumbai for offences
under Sections 387, 506(2), 452, 142, 143, 149 r/w Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.0912:41:50 +0530

¶12

2.The First Information Report was registered on 19th
March, 2020. It is alleged that the complainant is developer. Ahmad
Mansuri @ Ahmad Langda is associate of Chota Shakil. He had
visited complainant’s house and pointed pistol to his mother and
inquired about whereabouts of the complainant. He also told his
mother that the complainant should be informed that he shall pay
the amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. He threatened complainant’s mother.
On account of mental trauma complaint was not lodged. Thereafter,

¶13

1 of 5

¶14

Sajakali Jamadar

¶15

3- ABA-402-2021.doc

¶16

Ahmed Mansuri gave call to the complainant and told him that his
son-in-law Salman would visit him and he shall do the needful.
Thereafter, he sent repeated messages of extortion to him. The
complainant went on buying time and avoided his calls.
Subsequently the complainant also received threatening calls. On
14th March, 2020 the complainant received Whats-app messages
asking him as to when he would pay the rent and the said rent has to
be given to father-in-law Ahmed Mansuri. The complainant replied
that he can’t make the payment. The caller gave his name as Salman.
Thereafter, the complainant was abused and threatened and told that
he will received call from higher up. On 14th March, 2020 the
complainant was informed by his servant Tausif that Salman had
visited the office with ten to twelve armed persons, when the
complainant was not in the office. At that time, Tausif Shaikh and
Naim Sutar were present. The said persons demanded Rs. 3,50,000/-
and threatened that he would be killed if the amount is not paid.
Thereafter, Salman sent the messages abusing the complainant and
threatened him. The complainant forwarded his complaint to the
Police Station on 16th March, 2020. The FIR was registered on 19th
March, 2020.

¶17

3.The applicant had preferred an application for
anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The said application was

¶18

2 of 5

¶19

Sajakali Jamadar

¶20

3- ABA-402-2021.doc

¶21

opposed by filing say. By order dated 25th November, 2020, the
application for anticipatory bail was rejected. Thereafter, he
preferred another application for anticipatory bail which was
rejected by order dated 3rd February, 2021. The father-in-law of the
applicant Ahmed Mansuri had also preferred an application for
anticipatory bail. On health ground, the said application was allowed
by order dated 3rd February, 2021.

¶22

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that false
case has been filed against the applicant. Father-in-law of the
applicant Ahamed Mansuri had booked the flat with the complainant
20 years ago. The copy of the agreement has been annexed to this
application. The messages exchanged between the applicant and
complainant are in the nature of regular conversation which do not
indicate any sort of intimidation to the complainant or demand of
extortion of amount. Father-in-law of the applicant was granted
anticipatory bail on medical ground and charge-sheet is also filed
against applicant showing him wanted. It is submitted that one of the
message shows that the rent was demanded from the complainant.
The transaction was relating to the purchase of flat by the father-in-
law of the applicant. The applicant’s father-in-law had subsequently
expired. It is submitted that the allegations that the applicant had
entered into the office of complainant with ten to twelve persons,

¶23

3 of 5

¶24

Sajakali Jamadar

¶25

3- ABA-402-2021.doc

¶26

who were armed with weapons is completely false. The prosecution
is relying upon the C.C.T.V. footage. It does not corroborate the
version of the complainant. Subsequently, the prosecution is alleged
that 5 to 6 persons had accompanied the applicant. There is no
connection of father-in-law of the applicant with underworld as
alleged by complainant.

¶27

5.Learned APP submitted that FIR attributes role to the
applicant. He acted in connivance with his father-in-law. The
complainant was threatened. Learned APP relied upon the messages
exchanged between the applicant and the complainant. Investigation
is in progress.

¶28

6.From the FIR it is apparent that the alleged first incident
of threat by father-in-law of the applicant had occurred nine months
ago. There is no complaint in that regard. Whats-app message
indicate that the complainant was questioned as to when he is going
to pay rent to father-in-law of the applicant. The contents of whats-
app messages exchanged between the complainant and the applicant
does not indicate that there were any threat for extortion. Text
messages relied upon by the prosecution does not show that there
were any threat of extortion. C.C.T.V. footage does not show that the
applicant and his associates were at any point of time armed with

¶29

4 of 5

¶30

Sajakali Jamadar

¶31

3- ABA-402-2021.doc

¶32

weapons. The C.C.T.V. footage is collected. However, the ‘Say’
nowhere mentions that ten to twelve persons as alleged by the
complainant were armed with weapons while entering office of
complainant. Prosecution had not brought out any material showing
that the co-accused (father-in-law of the applicant) had any links
with underworld. In these circumstances, the applicant need not be
subjected to custodial interrogation. Hence, I pass the following
order:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.402 of 2021 is allowed;

¶35

(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with
C.R. No.76 of 2020 registered with Byculla Police Station,
Mumbai, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P. R.
Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in
the like amount;

¶36

(iii)The applicant shall attend the investigating officer on
15th, 16th & 17th March, 2021 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 noon.

¶37

(iv)The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶38

(v)Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶39

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶40

5 of 5

¶41

Sajakali Jamadar

Salman Salim Gondalwala v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman Salim Gondalwala 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

Lawrence Gabriel Miranda Vs the State of Maharashtra

Reshma Wasim Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Adnan Shaukat Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nasuruddin Mohd. Ali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Balu Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Altaf Khalid Tanwar Vs the State of Maharashtra