Allowed

Shabir Husain Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Oct 2023ABA/2651/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant. The court noted a significant delay in lodging the FIR and the co-accused's bail, finding the applicant merited the same relief. The applicant was ordered to deposit Rs. 1,20,000 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Conditional anticipatory bail granted subject to depositing Rs.1,20,000 with the Metropolitan Magistrate within two months and complying with investigation attendance.

Shabir Husain Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

906-ABA-2651-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2651 OF 2023

¶4

Shabir @Ahemad Husain Shaikh ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Priyesh R. Singh a/w Mr. Shashank Dubey, for the Applicant Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the Respondent/State. PSI Nitin Pawar, Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, Present.

¶6

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2023

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

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

¶9

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.0178 of 2023, registered with Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

¶10

The first informant lodged a report with the allegations that the co-accused Shaheen Shaikh represented to her that she would secure a MHADA tenement for the first informant. She was induced to part with a sum of Rs.86,000/- initially. On 26^th February 2015, the co-accused allegedly brought the applicant to the first informant’s house and represented that he was an Officer of

¶11

Sayyed

¶12

...1

¶13

906-ABA-2651-2023.doc

¶14

MHADA. The first informant was induced to part with four cheques drawn on Hindustan Co-Operative Bank. Certain documents were delivered to her to make her repose confidence in them. Neither the tenement could be allotted nor the amount was refunded. Having realized the fraud, the first informant lodged the report.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no amount was credited to the account of the applicant. The alleged incident occurred in the year 2015. Report came to be lodged in the year 2023. There is a huge delay. The co-accused Shaheen Shaikh was granted pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. Therefore, the applicant deserves the exercise of discretion.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that to show his bonafide the applicant is, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, willing to deposit the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction over the Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, if a reasonable time is granted as the applicant is suffering from serious ailment.

¶17

The learned APP resisted the application. It was submitted that the statement of account of the husband of the first informant indicates that a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- has been withdrawn by the

¶18

Sayyed

¶19

...2

¶20

906-ABA-2651-2023.doc

¶21

Shabir Shaikh, the applicant. The complicity of the applicant is, therefore, prima facie made out.

¶22

I have perused the allegations in the first information report. Primarily the allegations of inducing first informant to part with an amount by making a false representation of procuring tenement for her are against the co-accused Shaheen Shaikh.

¶23

By order dated 17^th August 2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised the discretion in favour of the co-accused Shaheen Shaikh.

¶24

Evidently there is a significant delay in lodging the FIR. Since the co-accused has been granted pre-arrest bail, the applicant, also deserves the same dispensation.

¶25

In view of the above, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶26

Hence, the following order :-

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i] The applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-

¶29

in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate exercising the jurisdiction over the Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, within a period of two months from today.

¶30

ii] Subject to aforesaid deposit, in the event of arrest in

¶31

Sayyed

¶32

...3

¶33

906-ABA-2651-2023.doc

¶34

connection with C.R. No.0178 of 2023 registered with Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶35

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and attend Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai on 13^th , 16^th and 18^th October 2023 in between 10 am to 1 pm.

¶36

iv] 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.

¶37

v] It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to determine the entitlement to pre-arrest bail only. vi] The application stands disposed.

¶38

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶39

Sayyed

¶40

...4

Shabir Husain Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabir Husain Shaikh 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

Pravinchandra Manilal Shah Vs State of Maharashtra

Shree Krushna Logistic Vs Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union and Anr.

Sohel Mahatab Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

Madan Bayaji Gore Vs State of Maharashtra