Allowed

Rajjab Chunnu Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jan 2023ABA/165/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Armed and Bailable Offences Division, granted anticipatory bail to the respondents in a case involving injuries caused during a quarrel. The court observed that custodial interrogation was not essential.

What did the court decide?

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one or more sureties of the like amount.

Rajjab Chunnu Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

903.aba.165-23.doc

¶2

Darshan Patil

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2023

¶5

Rajjab Chunnu Khan 2) Hasan Rajjab Khan ..Applicants VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶6

Mr. Shubham Upadhyay for the Applicants.

¶7

Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the State.

¶8

PSI N.P. Sawant, Mankhurd Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 19, 2023

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State.

¶13

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of C.R. No.1146 of 2022 registered with Mankhurd Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

3. The incident happened on 28/11/2022. The applicants are running tea and snacks restaurant. It is alleged by the complainant that the applicants started quarrel and during

1/3

Darshan Patil

903.aba.165-23.doc

the course of the quarrel, sons of the applicant no. 1 hit the complainant with the iron rod. Two persons known to the complainant came to the spot and took the complainant to the hospital. The complainant suffered simple injuries. The medical evidence on record indicates that even the applicant no. 1 had suffered simple injuries. It is the applicants’ case that the complainant owed an amount. Upon asking him for the payment of the due amount, the complainant assaulted the applicant no. 1.

¶19

4. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the nature of the injuries suffered, the custodial interrogation is not necessary. The applicant can be granted pre-arrest bail. Hence, the following order.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(a) In the event of arrest in respect of C.R. No.1146 of 2022 registered with Mankhurd Police Station, the applicant no. 1- Rajjab Chunnu Khan and applicant no. 2- Hasan Rajjab Khan, shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.15,000/- each with one or more sureties of the like amount.

¶22

(b) The applicants shall report to the concerned police station on 21/01/2023 and 22/01/2023

2/3

Darshan Patil

903.aba.165-23.doc

between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called for. The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶27

(c) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with evidence.

¶28

5. The application is disposed of.

¶29

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶30

3/3

Rajjab Chunnu Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjab Chunnu Khan and Anr. 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

Bhau Baban Ladhane @ Bhau Baban Ladane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayuresh Dayanad Kalambe and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Mhd. Faisal Ali Sher Ansari Vs State of Maharashtra

Sameer Ahmed Hussain Khan @ Rizwan Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Shaziya Abutahir Shaikh and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Ashok Shivram Koli @ Digav Vs the State of Maharashtra