Allowed

Kaif Afzal Sorathia v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Feb 2021ABA/94/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought anticipatory bail under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The High Court noted the FIR and investigation papers indicated the primary accused was the applicant's father-in-law. Finding the applicant's custodial interrogation unnecessary, the Court granted bail subject to attending police station and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties, to attend the police station and cooperate with investigation.

Kaif Afzal Sorathia Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

32-ABA94-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2021

¶4

Kaif Afzal Sorathia .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Viral Rathod i/b Nouman Shaikh, for the applicant. Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :15^th FEBRUARY 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.250 of 2019 registered at Phaltan City Police Station, Satara, on 25/07/2019, under sections 406 and 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶9

The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is

¶10

lodged by one Imran Niyaj Ahmad Qureshi. It is his case that, he is in the business of sale and purchase of bufalo

y.s.patil

1 of 5

32-ABA94-2021.odt

meat. He got acquainted with the applicant and his father in law at Hyderabad. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the applicant’s father in law Salman Latif requested the frst informant to have business relations. It was decided at that time that, Salman Latif was to act on commission basis. It was further decided that the informant was to provide 29 MT of bufalo meat. The purchase order was placed. The informant sent the meat to M/s. Vinalines Logistics at Vietnam. The bill was prepared in the name of that company as was directed by Salman Latif. The meat was worth more than Rs.61 lakhs. After it was sent, Salman Latif and the present applicant did not make any payment to the informant. They avoided making payment on some pretext or other.

¶15

3. Heard Shri. Viral Rathod, learned counsel for

¶16

the applicant and Shri. Yadav, learned APP for the State.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted

¶18

that the F.IR. itself indicates that the business relations y.s.patil 2 of 5

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

32-ABA94-2021.odt

¶21

were between the applicant’s father in law and the informant. The applicant’s name is shown at some place only to pressurize him.

¶22

Learned APP, on instructions of the

¶23

Investigating Ofcer submitted that the applicant was working as a Manager with his father-in-law’s company. Learned APP produced investigation papers before me. I have perused those papers. There are other witnesses but they only reproduced what the informant has stated in the FIR. The investigation papers also contain certain emails which show that those were sent by the applicant. However, learned APP on instructions makes a statement that those emails do not pertain to the present transaction which is subject matter of the present FIR.

¶24

I have considered these submissions. Investigation papers do not show something beyond what is mentioned in the FIR. The FIR clearly mentioned that the applicant’s father-in-law made representations to the

y.s.patil

3 of 5

32-ABA94-2021.odt

frst informant, which according to the frst informant was inducement because of which he entered into business transactions with the accused. After this inducement, the informant placed orders with the applicant’s father-inlaw’s frm. From that point onwards, the informant has described that the applicant was present with his fatherin-law. However, beyond that, there are no allegations against the present applicant. The FIR mentions that the applicant’s father-in-law Salman Latif was to act on commission basis.

¶29

Investigation papers also show that though the applicant had sent certain emails to other customers, investigation has not revealed anything to indicate that the applicant was himself instrumental in making any promise or inducement to the frst informant in this case.

¶30

The applicant’s father-in-law is already arrested and released on bail. Considering the lesser role attributed to the present applicant, his custodial y.s.patil 4 of 5

¶31

4 of 5

¶32

32-ABA94-2021.odt

¶33

interrogation is not necessary. He can be directed to attend the concerned Police Station and to co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶34

Hence, the following order :

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.250 of 2019 registered at Phaltan City Police Station, Satara, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶37

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶38

(iii) The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶40

y.s.patil

¶41

5 of 5

Kaif Afzal Sorathia v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaif Afzal Sorathia 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

Abhijit Ramesh Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Suresh Ghadi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandipan Devrao Kharat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jakir Bandenawaj Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suhas Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satish Saudagar Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.