Allowed

Yasin Julfikar Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jun 2023ABA/1116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court held that the applicant's presence at the airport, while working as a cargo loader and appearing in CCTV footage, was not an incriminating circumstance. Finding no prima facie material to show complicity in the theft charge, the Court allowed the bail application subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail upon arrest upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties. Conditions imposed to report to IO and not tamper with evidence or

Yasin Julfikar Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

P.H. Jayani 44 aaba1116.2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1116 OF 2023

¶4

Yasin Julfikar Ansari … Applicant
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶5

Mr. Aniket Ramsubhe for the Applicant.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State.
Mr. Swapnil Dalvi, PSI, Vimantal Police Station, present.

¶6

CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶7

DATED : 08th JUNE, 2023.

¶8

P. C. :-

¶9

. This is an Application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the

¶10

aforesaid Applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.18/2023
registered with Airport Police Station, Mumbai for offence punishable
under section 381 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

2.The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by
Anshul Milind Mohod who is the Assistant Manager in Agile Company.
The facts narrated in the FIR prima facie reveals that on 31/01/2023,
Satish Kashid, the Manager of Indigo Cargo has reported to the first
informant that on 25/01/2023, some mobile phones were stolen from
Santacruz Air Cargo Terminal from Flight No.6E-461 (Bombay –

¶12

1/3

¶13

P.H. Jayani 44 aaba1116.2023.doc

¶14

Hyderabad) Airway Bill No.31241504982. The FIR came to be lodged
on 28/02/2023 against Naved Shah and three other persons who were
employed as loaders through Agile Company.

¶15

3.The only allegation against the Applicant is that he was seen in
CCTV footage. Since the Applicant was working as a Cargo loader, his
presence at the Airport is not unnatural and his presence per se cannot
be construed as an incriminating circumstance. There is no other
prima facie material to show his complicity in the said crime.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, this is a fit case to
exercise discretion under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the Application
is allowed on the following terms and conditions :-

¶16

(a)In the event of arrest of the Applicant in
C.R.No.18/2023 registered with Airport Police Station,

¶17

Mumbai, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds

¶18

in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like

¶19

amount ;

¶20

(b)The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer
on 14/06/2023 and 15/06/2023 between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00

¶21

p.m. ;

¶22

2/3

¶23

P.H. Jayani 44 aaba1116.2023.doc

¶24

(c)The Applicant shall not interfere with the
Complainant and the other witnesses and shall not tamper
with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the
complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case
in any manner ;

¶25

(d)The Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer
informed of his current address and mobile contact numbers,
and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time
to time.

¶26

4. The Application stands disposed of.

¶27

 (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶28

3/3

Yasin Julfikar Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasin Julfikar Ansari 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

Irfan Ahmed Siddiqui Vs Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr.

Sameer Suleman Shama Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mangala Ashok Tike Vs Sujata Sanjay Dhonde and Anr.

Fr. Sabu Thomas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Pitambar Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shanyog Shriniwas Gautam Vs the State of Maharashtra