Allowed

Shobha Pradeep Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Oct 2023ABA/626/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Bombay High Court was persuaded to make an interim bail order absolute for the applicant, who was not initially named in the FIR but whose husband was arrested. The court held that a false claim of title over subject lands does not justify declining pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 2 March 2023 granting interim bail was made absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

Shobha Pradeep Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:31736

¶2

26 aba 626 of 2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.626 OF 2023

Shobha Pradeep Singh

… Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/by Ms. Sonali R. Chavan, for Applicant. Mr. Akash Kavde, for Intervener. Smt. Ashwini Takalkar, APP for State.

¶10

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 19 OCTOBER 2023

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.622

¶14

of 2022 registered with Tulinj Police Station for the offences punishable under

¶15

Sections 420, 447, 448, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

By an order dated 2 March 2023, this Court was persuaded to grant interim bail as the applicant was not named in the FIR and the husband of the applicant in whose favour the allegedly fabricated instrument was executed, was arrested and had since been released on bail.

¶17

The learned APP submitted that though the applicant had appeared

¶18

before the Investigating Officer, she has not rendered necessary co-operation.

¶19

From the perusal of the FIR, it appears that the allegedly executed

¶20

SSP 1/2

¶21

26 aba 626 of 2023.doc

¶22

instrument was executed in her favour.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the first informant submitted that applicant has been claiming proprietary and possessory title over the subject lands and the said claim has been negated by the courts.

¶24

The claim of proprietary and possessory title over the subject lands may be patently false. However, that cannot be a ground to decline the relief of pre-arrest. I am, therefore, impelled to make the order dated 2 March 2023 absolute.

¶25

The order dated 2 March 2023 is made absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶26

The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

¶27

The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional court.

¶28

The Application stands disposed.

¶29

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶30

SSP 2/2

Shobha Pradeep Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Pradeep Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Kailash Singh Vs State of Maharashtra

Asfi Rafique Thothe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anis Shekhlal Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogita Kishor Chennur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Vyankati Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrugesh Kothari Vs the State of Maharashtra