Allowed

Nasimuddin Hakimuddin Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Oct 2023ABA/398/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted pre-arrest bail to four applicants in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry allegations. The court directed the deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- and imposed standard bail conditions, clarifying the order was confined to bail entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- in Court and compliance with bail conditions.

Nasimuddin Hakimuddin Shaikh and Anr. Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:30943

¶2

1-ABA398-2022.DOC

¶3

Santosh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 398 OF 2022

¶6

Nasimuddin Hakimuddin Shaikh

¶7

Mrs. Nasimbano Nasimuddin Shaikh

¶8

Mohd. Nadim Nasimuddin Shaikh

¶9

Afroz Jahan Nadim Shaikh

¶10

...Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶13

Ms. Shraddha Singh, i/b Seema Singh, for the Applicants. Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the State/Respondent No.1. Ms. Sartaj Shaikh, for Respondent No.2/First Informant. API Parag Bhat, Nayanagar Police Station, present.

¶14

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 16^th OCTOBER, 2023

¶15

ORDER:-

¶16

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

¶17

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.9 of 2022, registered with Nayanagar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

¶18

The genesis of the offences is in the matrimonial dispute between the first informant and accused No.1. One of

¶19

1/3

¶20

1-ABA398-2022.DOC

¶21

the allegations in the FIR is that the applicants had accepted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- prior to the solemnization of the marriage. The allegation is controverted by the applicants by submitting that the applicants and parents of the first informant, being the relatives, had financial transactions even prior to the marriage.

¶22

Nonetheless, without prejudice to the rights and contentions and without admitting any liability on the count of the alleged payment being in the nature of dowry, applicant Nos.1 and 2 have shown willingness to deposit the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid statement and the nature of accusation, which does not necessarily warrant custodial interrogation for an effective investigation, I am persuaded to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants.

¶24

Hence the following order:

¶25

: O R D E R :

¶26

(i) The applicants shall deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Court of learned Magistrate exercising jurisdiction over Nayanagar Police Station within a period of four weeks from today.

¶27

2/3

¶28

1-ABA398-2022.DOC

¶29

(ii) Subject to deposit of the aforesaid amount, order of pre-arrest bail dated 22^nd February, 2022 is made absolute.

¶30

(iii) The learned Magistrate shall invest the amount in an interest bearing account and the amount shall abide the final adjudication of the trial.

¶31

(iv) The applicants 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.

¶32

(v) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

¶33

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

¶34

Application stands disposed.

¶35

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶36

3/3

Nasimuddin Hakimuddin Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasimuddin Hakimuddin Shaikh and 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

Harbinderrsingh Manku and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prasad Keshav Etane Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Madhukar Hedaoo Vs State of Maharashtra

Abhishek Prashar Son of Pushkar Prashar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Sutapa Kole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amarjeet @ Revan Sambhaji Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra