Allowed

Nitin Devji Dabhi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Mar 2021BA/764/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offences of cheating and forgery, the court held that further custody was unnecessary as the applicant was not named in the FIR. Bail was granted on payment of bond and furnishing provisional cash bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on executing P.R. Bond in Rs. 25,000/- with local sureties; provisional cash bail permitted for 8 weeks; applicant directed to surrender regularly.

Nitin Devji Dabhi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

rpa 1 / 5 51 ba 764 2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.764 OF 2021

¶4

Nitin Devji Dabhi .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Hiten Venegaonkar a/w. Mr.Kuldip T. Pawar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Ms.Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶8

DATED : MARCH 09, 2021.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This is an application for bail in connection with C.R.No.328 of 2020, registered with D.B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, for the ofences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short). Applicant was arrested on 2^nd December, 2020.

¶11

RajeP. Aher

¶12

Digitally signed by RajeP. Aher Date: 2021.03.12 10:57:26 +0530

¶13

2 The case of the prosecution is that secret information was received by oficials of D.B.Marg Police Statio, that some persons are fabricating Government identity card and preparing forged QR Code of Indian Railway and travelling in local railway,

¶14

rpa 2 / 5 51 ba 764 2021.doc

¶15

which is against the norms and rules issued by the Government during pandemic. Trap was arranged and accused nos.1 to 4 were arrested. During the custodial interrogation of the arrested accused, it was revealed that the applicant is associated with accused no.4. Investigation proceeded. Applicant was arrested on 2^nd December, 2020. On completing investigation, charge–sheet was fled.

¶16

3 Applicant had preferred an application for bail before the Sessions Court, which has been rejected.

¶17

4 Applicant had sought temporary bail since the marriage of the applicant is fied prior to his arrest which was to be performed on 16^th February, 2021. Pending this application, temporary bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 15^th February, 2021, for a period of 15 days from the date of release on eiecuting P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. Applicant availed of the bail facility. Subsequently, by order dated 5^th March, 2021, it was directed that the applicant to surrender before the jail authority on or before 9^th March, 2021. It is submitted, on instructions, that the applicant has surrendered before the jail authority on 8^th March, 2021. The statement is accepted.

¶18

rpa 3 / 5 51 ba 764 2021.doc

¶19

5 Application was posted for hearing on merits.

¶20

6 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was in custody from 2^nd February, 2020. Further custody of the applicant is not necessary. He was not named in the FIR. Nothing is found from his possession. Applicant is not involved in forgery of documents. There are no criminal antecedents against him. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had prepared identity card or Q.R. Code. Applicant was arrested on the basis of the statement of the co-accused recorded during investigation. Investigation is completed and charge – sheet is already fled.

¶21

7 Learned APP submits that the involvement of the applicant is fortifed by the evidence on record. Accused were involved in preparing forged documents. The allegations are serious. Involvement of the applicant was disclosed during the course of investigation. The accused had prepared factitious railway pass with fake identity.

¶22

8 The ofences are triable by Magistrate. Charge–sheet is fled. Applicant was not named in the FIR. He is in custody for substantial period. Considering these circumstances, further detention of the applicant is not necessary.

¶23

rpa 4 / 5 51 ba 764 2021.doc

¶24

9 Hence, I pass the following order:

¶25

:: O R D E R ::

¶26

(i) Bail Application No.764 of 2020, is allowed;

¶27

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.328 of 2020, registered with D.B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, on eiecuting P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more local sureties in the like amount;

¶28

(iii) Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of eight weeks;

¶29

(v) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶30

(vi) Applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on the date of hearing, unless eiempted;

¶31

(vii) Bail Application No.764 of 2020, stands disposed of accordingly;

¶32

rpa 5 / 5 51 ba 764 2021.doc

¶33

(viii) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this

¶34

order.

¶35

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Nitin Devji Dabhi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Devji Dabhi 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

Sachin Laxman Parab and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohan Devtadin Kanojiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Balkrushna Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Danish Mohammed Rais Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tushar Dashrath Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhavesh @ Bhau Bhagwan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra