Allowed

Sayyed Quadeer Sayyed Jameel v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Oct 2023ABA/1301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under CR No. 3 of 2022, the申请人 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser. The court granted bail on the surrender of a PR Bond and with sureties, observing that custodial interrogation was not warranted as the truck was recovered and allegations were primarily against the vendor.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Bail granted on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Sayyed Quadeer Sayyed Jameel Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:29599

¶2

918-ABA1301-2023.DOC

¶3

Santosh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1301 OF 2023

¶6

Sayyed Quadeer Sayyed Jameel ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶7

Mr. Abhinandan Waghmare, a/w Anjaykumar Kori, Sachin Suware and Sumit Vhanbhate, for the Applicant. Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the State/Respondent. API Santosh Borate, Bhiwandi Taluka Police Station,

¶8

present.

¶9

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 7^th OCTOBER, 2023

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶12

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.3 of 2022, registered with Kongaon Police Station, Thane, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

¶13

Rahim Shaikh was the registered owner of the Truck bearing No.MH-23/BE-8298. As he had committed default in payment of the installments, HDFC Bank had resumed

¶14

1/4

¶15

918-ABA1301-2023.DOC

¶16

possession of the truck. Later on HDFC Bank sold the said truck to one Irshad Pathan. The first informant claimed to have purchased the said truck from the said Irshad Pathan. However, since accused No.1 Rahim Shaikh was shown as the registered owner of the vehicle, the first informant claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- to Rahim Shaikh. On 19^th November, 2021, accused No.1 Rahim Shaikh and his associates Idris Gulab Rasool Shaikh, Aamer Iqbal Sayyad and another unknown person forcibly took away the truck while it was parked near Bhiwandi bypass. Hence the report.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no role in the alleged criminal breach of trust. Nor the applicant ever entered into any transaction with the first informant. In fact under an agreement dated 10^th December, 2021, accused No.1 Rahim Shaikh had agreed to sell the said truck for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/out of which a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the applicant to accused No.1. The applicant is a bona fide purchaser for value. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted.

¶18

The learned APP, on instructions of the Investigating

¶19

Officer, submits that subject truck has since been recovered.

¶20

2/4

¶21

918-ABA1301-2023.DOC

¶22

Prima facie, it does not appear that the applicant was either named as the person, who had dishonestly taken away the truck or was otherwise involved in the alleged offences of breach of trust and cheating. Since the allegations are primarily against the vendor of the applicant and the truck has been recovered, at this length of time, the arrest and custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem to be warranted. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶23

Hence, the following order.

¶24

: O R D E R :

¶25

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in CR No.3 of 2022, registered with Kongaon Police Station, Thane, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend Kongaon Police Station on 13^th and 20^th October, 2023 in between 10.00 am. to 1.00 pm. and, thereafter, as and when directed.

¶27

3/4

¶28

918-ABA1301-2023.DOC

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant or any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

¶31

(v) It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to determine entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶32

Application stands disposed.

¶33

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶34

4/4

Sayyed Quadeer Sayyed Jameel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Quadeer Sayyed Jameel 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

Mithila Apartment Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Thr. Its Honorary Secretary Vs Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.

Mahamad Khajapasha Mahamad Kasim @ Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shabir Husain Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajat Jaggi Vs State of Maharashtra

Amol Parasram Bhujade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parveen Wahid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra