Dismissed

Abdul Hamid Sayed v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Feb 2023ABA/354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two anticipatory bail applications, the High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction rejected the plea for pre-arrest bail. The applicant faced serious charges including extortion and cheating. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the conspiracy. Consequently, both applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory Bail Application No.354 of 2023 and Anticipatory Bail Application No.358 of 2023 were rejected.

Abdul Hamid Sayed Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

912 and 914.aba.354 and 358-23.doc

¶2

PMB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.354 OF 2023 WITH

¶5

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2023.02.27 17:39:58 +0530

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2023

¶7

Abdul Hamid Sayed ..Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶8

Adv. Ramanik P. Pawar for the Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State. Nilama Jadhav, PI, Goregaon Police Station present.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : FEBRUARY 9, 2023

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

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

¶13

2. Anticipatory Bail Application No.354 of 2023 is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 386, 170, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3, 25 of Arms Act in connection with C.R. No.580 of 2022 dated 14/10/2022 registered with Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon.

¶14

1/5

¶15

PMB

¶16

912 and 914.aba.354 and 358-23.doc

¶17

3. Anticipatory Bail Application No.358 of 2023 is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 386, 170, 419, 465, 468, 471 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with C.R. No.925 of 2022 dated 30/09/2022 registered with Goregaon Police Station.

¶18

4. The applicant is the main accused. The applicant is accused in two different offences registered with the same police station. The trial Court decided the pre-arrest bail applications of the applicant by a common order. I therefore proceed to decide these applications by a common order.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused have been released on regular bail and hence the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. It is further submitted that the only basis for showing his complicity in the offence is his presence in the Innova Car. It is submitted that the Innova Car in which the applicant was allegedly seen on the date of the incident i.e. 01/07/2022, was in fact purchased by the applicant only on 17/08/2022. It is further submitted that the applicant never

¶20

2/5

¶21

PMB

¶22

912 and 914.aba.354 and 358-23.doc

¶23

used the mobile phone which the prosecution alleges to have been used by the applicant to contact the co-accused at the time of incident. The applicant’s name is not mentioned in the FIR.

¶24

6. I have perused the FIR. In Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.358 of 2023 pertaining to FIR No.925 of 2022, the FIR is lodged by one Mr. Rahul Shankar Gaikwad. The first informant was in need of a loan. One of his acquaintance introduced the informant to a person named Kaustubh who could help arrange the loan. Rs.5 lakhs was the commission demanded by Kaustubh. The first meeting was on 29/09/2022. On 30/09/2022 Kaustubh came to the office and confirmed that the commission of Rs.5 lakhs is available with the informant. Thereafter, Kaustubh called a person named Narendra Vhora who he introduced as the representative of the “Indus Tower Limited”. Thereupon, one person named Vipul who had accompanied Kasutubh disclosed that he is a CBI officer and also showed the informant his identity card. Kaustubh was asked to pay the sum of Rs.5 lakhs to him if he wanted to avoid any

¶25

3/5

¶26

PMB

¶27

912 and 914.aba.354 and 358-23.doc

¶28

prosecution. The informant handed over Rs.5 lakhs to Kaustubh’s acquaintance. The informant later realised that these persons had come in a private car and therefore suspected foul play. The informant along with his friend caught hold of these two persons and informed the police. One of the co-accused thus impersonated as a CBI officer and had almost succeeded in fleeing with the amount of Rs.5 lakhs along with the co-accused.

¶29

7. So far as the applicant is concerned, his involvement came to light during interrogation of the co-accused. According to learned APP he is the mastermind and was seen in one Innova Car which was close to the location and was in contact with the co-accused. The conspiracy is alleged to be hatched by him. It is alleged that this modus operandi was being adopted by the applicant alongwith the co-accused to extort money from other persons. Four accused were caught red-handed.

¶30

8. So far as Anticipatory Bail Application No.354 of 2023 is concerned, a similar modus operandi was adopted by the accused thereby forcibly taking away Rs.50 lakhs from the

¶31

4/5

¶32

PMB 912 and 914.aba.354 and 358-23.doc informant at gun point. Even here, one of the co-accused had posed as a CBI officer. The accusations against the applicant are serious and need to be investigated. It is not possible for me to form an opinion that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required in the present case.

¶33

9. Anticipatory Bail Applications are rejected.

¶34

5/5

Abdul Hamid Sayed v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hamid Sayed 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

Rahul Ashok Yadav Ad Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

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