Allowed

Wasi Walid Rais v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Oct 2021ABA/580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail to applicants charged with cheating and forgery offences. The court held that being witnesses to documents did not make them parties to the crime. Bail granted subject to bonds, conditions against influencing witnesses, and periodic appearance before investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on pre-arrest bail by furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with sureties. Conditions imposed against influencing witnesses and appearing before IO weekly.

Wasi Walid Rais Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed IRESHSIDDHARAM by IRESHSIDDHARAMMASHAL MASHAL Date: 2021.10.29 12:47:39 +0530

¶2

8.580.21 ABA.doc

¶3

ISM

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 580 OF 2021

¶7

WASI WALID RAIS ….APPLICANT

¶8

V/s.

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …..RESPONDENT

¶10

WITH

¶11

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 945 OF 2021 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 580 OF 2021

¶12

NAWALKISHORE LALCHAND SONI ….APPLICANT

¶13

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶14

WASI WALID RAIS ….APPLICANT

¶15

V/s.

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …..RESPONDENT

¶17

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2021

¶18

OWAIS ABDULLAH KHAN ….APPLICANT

¶19

V/S.

¶20

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….RESPONDENT

¶21

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 946 OF 2021

1/6

8.580.21 ABA.doc

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2021

¶26

NAWALKISHORE LALCHAND SONI ….APPLICANT

¶27

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶28

OWAIS ABDULLAH KHAN ….APPLICANT

¶29

V/S.

¶30

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….RESPONDENT

¶31

Mr. Rajendra T. Rathod i/b Mr. Ali Bubere for the applicant in both applications.

¶32

Mr. Sagar G. Talekar for intervenor in both applications Mrs. J. S. Lohokare APP for the State

¶33

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: 6^th OCTOBER, 2021.

¶34

P.C.:

¶35

1] Heard respective counsel. In both these applications, applicants

¶36

are seeking pre-arrest bail in C.R. No. 106 of 2020 registered with

¶37

Wagle Estate Police Station for offence punishable under sections

¶38

420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶39

2] The prosecution case is, complainant alongwith accused Shabib

¶40

2/6

¶41

8.580.21 ABA.doc

¶42

Patel purchased property for a certain consideration. Such property was thereafter transferred by accused Shabib in his individual name by executing various deeds to which both applicants are shown to be witnesses.

¶43

3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that serious role is not attributed to the applicants. It cannot be inferred from the F.I.R. that they are named with any serious attributions. According to him, the only role that could be inferred against the applicants is, witnesses to the documents which are executed by accused Shabib. He would claim that applicants being witnesses to the documents which are formed to be basis for registration of offence cannot be inferred to be party to the contents therein.

¶44

4] Learned APP opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that accused Shabib is absconding and against one of the applicant namely Wasi Walid Rais offence being C.R. No. 581/2020 punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is already registered.

¶45

3/6

¶46

8.580.21 ABA.doc

¶47

5] I have considered the aforesaid submissions.

¶48

6] Applicants, being witnesses to the various documents which are lodged for registration at the behest of accused no. 1 Shabib is not a fact in dispute.

¶49

7] The status of the applicants in such an eventuality in the capacity of witnesses to the document cannot be stretched to the extent they being also party to the contents of the documents. All that can be said that they have witnessed the execution of the document and cannot be termed as party to the contents.

¶50

8] In the aforesaid background, the claim that applicants are also involved in the crime in question cannot be inferred.

¶51

9] Applicant Wasi Walid Rais is already ordered to be released on

¶52

pre-arrest bail on 02/03/2021 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.

¶53

4/6

¶54

8.580.21 ABA.doc

¶55

493/2021 by this Court.

¶56

10] In the aforesaid background, considering the role attributed to the applicants, material available on record, in my opinion, applicants deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail on following conditions:

¶57

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicants in C.R. No. 106 of 2020 registered with Wagle Estate Police Station for offence punishable under sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, they be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶58

(ii) Applicants shall neither influence prosecution witnesses in any manner nor tamper with evidence.

¶59

(iii) Till the charge-sheet is submitted, applicants shall, initially for two weeks, appear before Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and thereafter on every

¶60

5/6

¶61

8.580.21 ABA.doc

¶62

Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon or as and when directed.

¶63

11] Applications alongwith intervention applications stand disposed

¶64

of.

¶65

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶66

6/6

Wasi Walid Rais v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasi Walid Rais 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

Jayesh Bhikulal Bhangdiya Vs Mrs. Nilima Jayesh Bhangdiya

Siddesh Ashok Sorte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajit Atmaram Apraj @ Saheb @ Ajitbhai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nayan Nanasaheb Gandhi vs M/S/ Kolte Patil Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Pune- 411001 and Ors.

Asif Ayub Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohan Ramkrishna Dhekane Vs the State of Maharashtra