Allowed

Rahul Ashok Yadav Ad Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Feb 2023ABA/242/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction granted interim bail to two applicants accused of dacoity, holding that given their mutual knowledge with the informant, residence in the same area, and lack of antecedents, custodial interrogation was not required.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a Police R.Question Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in like amount.

Rahul Ashok Yadav Ad Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Darshan Patil

¶2

908-aba-242-23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 242 OF 2023

¶5

Rahul Ashok Yadav 2) Saddam Hussain Nasim Ansari ..Applicants VS. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶6

Adv. Monish Bhatia a/w Mr. Vikrant Sukhwani for the Applicant.

¶7

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

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : FEBRUARY 9, 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

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

¶12

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail by the applicants in connection with C.R. No.I-277 of 2022 dated 15/06/2022, registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station, under section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶13

3. It is alleged that 13 accused had gathered for the purpose of dacoity near the house of one Mr. Vishal Shinde.

1/4

908-aba-242-23.odt

Darshan Patil

The applicants are accused nos. 8 and 10. Mr. Vishal Shinde came to know that the accused had gathered at the spot to commit dacoity at his house and therefore, informed the police. The police arrested accused no. 1 Fauji and accused no. 2 Suraj. The others on seeing police arrival, fled from the scene on motorcycles. The allegation is that 13 accused have assembled with the intention to committee dacoity. The witness Mr. Vishal Shinde in his statement stated that there is a previous dispute between the accused no. 3- Sudhir Singh and them. It is stated that in 2021 the accused no. 3 and along with his associates had committed dacoity at his residence. Accordingly, the complaint C.R. no 9 of 2021 came to be registered against Sudhir Singh and his associates under sections 395 and 452 of IPC.

¶18

4. The materials reveal that one of the witnesses stated that applicants had come to offer condolences to his family as the witness’s father has passed away. Considering that there are disputes between the group of Sudhir Singh to which applicants belong and the informant Mr. Vishal Shinde, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. The applicants and the informant

2/4

Darshan Patil

908-aba-242-23.odt

are known to each other very well as they are residing in the same area. There is a political rivalry between them. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicants. Hence, the following order.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(a) In the event of arrest of the applicantsRahul Ashok Yadav and Saddam Hussain Nasim Ansari, in connection with C.R. No.I-277 of 2022, registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station, shall be released on bail, on their furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶25

(b) The applicants shall report to the concerned police station on 14/02/2023 and 15/02/2023 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called;

¶26

(c) The applicants to co-operate with the Investigating Officer;

¶27

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

¶28

(e) The applicants shall furnish the details of

3/4

Darshan Patil

908-aba-242-23.odt

their residential addresses and phone numbers to the investigating officer.

¶33

5. The application stands disposed of.

¶34

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶35

4/4

Rahul Ashok Yadav Ad Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Ashok Yadav Ad Anr. v. 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

Pundlik Rajaram Palshetkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Mohanrav Makhane Vs State of Maharashtra

Laik Lal Mohammad Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ghulam Irani Jafrey Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharmendra Mahendra Yadav @ Hulchul Mahendra Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Hamid Sayed Vs State of Maharashtra