The High Court of Gujarat rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by Mohd. Salim Qureshi in CR No.88 of 2021. The court held that no case was made out for granting relief considering the FIR contents, the applicant's role, and his criminal record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 of 2 21.ABA.576.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.576 OF 2021
Mohd. Salim Qureshi
Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent
Mr.Satyaram R. Gaud for applicant.
Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP, for State.
CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 16th March 2021
PC :
1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.88 of 2021
registered with Dharavi Police Station for offences under Sections
363, 341, 394, 324, 504, 506(ii) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code along
with Sections 37(1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.
Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.1811:16:15 +0530
2.The FIR was lodged on 12th February 2021. The complainant
has alleged that on 9th February 2021 the accused-applicant had
obstructed the complainant and threatened him by showing chopper.
He was forced to sit on a scooter and abducted. He was taken to the
place of incident near Sanjay Chawl. The associates of main accused
namely Naved, Kopcha and Asif then assaulted him with fists and
kick blows. The applicant pointed out the chopper and took away
amount of Rs.8,110/- from his pocket.
3.Learned counsel for applicant submitted that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. Custodial interrogation of the
2 of 2 21.ABA.576.2021.doc
applicant is not necessary. There is delay in lodging the FIR. The
complainant had tendered affidavit before Sessions Court stating that
the FIR was registered in Marathi language and it was not read over
to him in his vernacular language. There is settlement between
parties.
4.The application preferred before the Sessions Court was
rejected. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13th
February 2021 for offences under Section 354 IPC against present
complainant by Vahida Salim Qureshi (wife of applicant).
5.Learned APP submitted that the offence is of serious nature.
About 10 cases were registered against applicant in the past. He is
involved in serious offences. Several times preventive measures were
initiated against him. He is creating terror in the locality. He was
externed.
6. Considering the contents of FIR, role assigned to the applicant and criminal antecedents, no case for granting relief is made out. Hence, anticipatory bail application is rejected.
7.This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of
this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a
digitally signed copy of this order.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the serious nature of the offences and the applicant's criminal antecedents.
Mohd. Salim Qureshi
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court