Allowed

Amaro Mohammad Sharif Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Jun 2023ABA/657/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under C.R. No. 954 of 2020 (Section 420 IPC), the Single Judge allowed bail on conditions. The applicant had interim protection, reported to the IO, and the charge sheet was filed. Bail conditions included surrender upon arrest, reporting, non-tampering, and address communication.

What did the court decide?

Allowed on conditions: release on bail bond upon arrest, reporting to IO, no tampering, and informing IO of address changes.

Amaro Mohammad Sharif Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

31_aba_657_2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2021

¶4

Mrs. Amaro Mohammad Sharif Khan...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶7

Mr. S.C. Singh for the Applicant.
Ms A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. R. Gandre, API, Andheri Police Station, present.

¶8

CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶9

DATED: 27th JUNE, 2023.

¶10

P. C. :-

¶11

1. The Applicant apprehends her arrest in C.R. No.954 of

¶12

2020 registered with Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences
punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC.

¶13

2.Heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant and Ms
A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the Respondent -State. I have perused

¶14

the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties.

¶15

3.The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR
lodged by Arun Madkaikar. The facts narrated in the FIR prima facie

Megha

1/3

31_aba_657_2021.odt

reveal that Room No.4 in Shankar Patil Chawl was in the name of his
father. The Applicant herein, who was the proprietor of M/s. Royal
Builders, had agreed to develop the said Chawl under the SRA
scheme. The case of the prosecution is that the Applicant had assured
flat No.507 in the newly constructed building. It is the case of the
First Informant that one Mohammad Akhtar took loan of
Rs.12,42,384/- by mortgaging the said flat. Hence, the FIR for
cheating.

¶20

4.This Court had granted interim protection to the Applicant
vide order dated 10/03/2021. Learned APP states that pursuant to
the said order the Applicant has reported to the Investigating Officer
and has cooperated with the investigation and that the charge-sheet
has been filed. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that the
Applicant has also deposited an amount of Rs.9,55,000/- before the
Bank.

¶21

5.It is thus evident that the presence of the Applicant is not
required for custodial interrogation. Hence, the application is allowed
on the following terms and conditions:-

¶22

(i)In the event of arrest of the Applicant in C.R.

Megha

2/3

31_aba_657_2021.odt

No.954 of 2020 registered with Andheri Police

¶27

Station, Mumbai, she shall be released on bail on

¶28

furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/-

¶29

with one or two sureties to the like amount;

¶30

(ii)The Applicant shall report to the concerned

¶31

Investigating Officer as and when required by the
Investigating Officer for the purpose of
investigation;

¶32

(iii)The Applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence and or influence the
witnesses in any manner;

¶33

(iv)The Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer

¶34

informed of her current address and mobile
contact numbers, and /or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time.

¶35

6. The application stands disposed of.

¶36

 (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶37

Megha

¶38

3/3

Amaro Mohammad Sharif Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaro Mohammad Sharif Khan 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

Mahadev Appasaheb Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shraddha Yuvraj Takawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikesh Prakash Takawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Sukhram Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Firdos Irfan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rashmin T. Rughani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.