Disposed

Sanjay Victor Dsouza v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Dec 2022ABA/585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an anticipatory bail application under Section 420 and related sections of the IPC. It directed the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on specific dates and allowed arrest after a 72-hour notice.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 6th, 7th and 8th December, 2022; arrest permissible after 72 hours notice.

Sanjay Victor Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

25.ABA.585-22.doc

¶2

PMB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PRADNYA MAKARAND BHOGALE

¶5

Digitally signed by PRADNYA MAKARAND BHOGALE Date: 2022.12.01 20:01:17 +0530

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2022

¶7

SANJAY VICTOR D’SOUZA ..APPLICANT

¶8

VS.

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶10

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.825 OF 2022 IN

¶11

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2022

¶12

MELINDA EUSTACE D’SOUZA ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶13

Mr. S. H. Mishra for applicant.

¶14

Mr. Jeetendra Ranawat i/b. Mr. S. D. Sherkhane for applicant in IA/825/2022.

¶15

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State.

¶16

Mr. Dattatray Khade, PSI, Santacruz Police Station.

¶17

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 1, 2022.

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for the intervenor.

¶20

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of

¶21

the offence punishable under Sections 420, 193(2), 199 and

¶22

¶23

25.ABA.585-22.doc

¶24

200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with C.R. No.536 of 2021 dated 17/12/2021 registered with Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai.

¶25

3. The dispute is between the family members towards the property which the complainant also claims a share. It is alleged that by cheating the complainant, the applicant executed documents and sold out the entire property which includes the share of the complainant as well.

¶26

4. Learned APP pointed out that a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ‘the Cr. P. C.’, for short) was issued, but the applicant did not co-operate. Even in these proceedings, the matter was referred to mediation. During mediation also the applicant did not appear before the Mediator and therefore, the Mediator submitted a failure report. The bonafides of the applicant in co-operating with the investigation appear to be doubtful. Learned counsel for the applicant submits on instructions that the applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation. Let the applicant appear before the Investigating Officer on 6^th , 7^th and 8^th December, 2022

¶27

¶28

25.ABA.585-22.doc

¶29

between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called. In case if the Investigating Officer wants to effect the arrest if he feels that arrest is imperative in the wake of the reasons recorded by him, he may effect the arrest after giving 72 hours notice in advance to the applicant.

¶30

5. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of.

¶31

6. The Interim Application is also disposed of.

¶32

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶33

Sanjay Victor Dsouza v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Victor Dsouza 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

Raju Narayan Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zoher Sohail Ansari and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Mubashshara Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kunal Vishnu Kot Vs State of Maharashtra

Ritu Vineet Menon Vs State of Maharashtra

Pritam Ravikumar Soni Vs The State of Maharashtra Dahisar Police Station, (C.C.No. 2099/PW/2021)