Allowed

Asrar Salim Shaikh and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Oct 2023ABA/723/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two applicants applied for anticipatory bail regarding charges of theft and extortion. The High Court allowed the application based on an interim order, granting interim protection modulo conditions regarding appearance before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to appear before Investigating Officer four times and deemed in custody during recovery.

Asrar Salim Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

965 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.723 OF 2023

¶3

1. Asrar Salim Shaikh

¶4

2. Sharukh Shah Farooq Fakir

¶5

.. Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Advocate for Applicants : Ms. Sabahat T. Kazi
APP for Respondent / State : Mrs. G.L. Deshpande

¶10

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2023

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

.At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants seeks

¶13

leave to amend prayer clause to add the date and number of
charge-sheet.

¶14

2. Leave granted.

¶15

3. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime

¶16

No.45 of 2022 registered with Dondaicha Police Station,
Dist. Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 380, 395,

¶17

120-B, 412, 413, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

1/4

¶19

4.Informant Prashant Walmik Patil, Head Master of
S.V.S.I.T.C., Dondaicha reported to the police about the incident
noticed by him in the morning of 02.02.2022. It is reported that
a created hole was found in the wall and 12 electric motors were not
found at their place. Further it was found that in all 26 articles were
stolen by unknown persons.

¶20

5.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after the
completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed and in the
entire investigation, no evidence is found to connect the applicants
with the crime in question. It is further submitted that after seven
months of the occurrence of the incident, supplementary statement of
the informant was recorded wherein for the first time he has claimed
that he had seen applicants and co-accused committing theft of those
articles. It is further submitted that the said statement made at
belated stage is not reliable. Thus, according to learned counsel for
the applicants, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶21

6.Learned APP opposed the application by contending that
merely because statement has been recorded after seven months, the
same cannot be completely discarded particularly in view of the fact

¶22

2/4

¶23

that the accused persons had threatened the informant not to lodge
any complaint against them. It is submitted that the said statement
gets support from the recovery done at the instance of the co-accused.
Thus, according to her, applicants are not entitled for interim
protection.

¶24

7.The alleged incident has occurred on 03.02.2022 and the
offence was registered initially against unknown persons. It does not
stand to any justification as to why for a long period of seven months
the informant has failed to intimate to the police about the
involvement of the present applicants in the present crime when he
really seen them committing theft. Apart from this, the recovery of
one electric motor at the instance of co-accused also would not be
sufficient to connect the applicants with this crime. As far as the
identification parade if any to be conducted by the investigating
agency is concerned, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of
anticipatory bail. It may be open for the investigating agency to
conduct the identification parade, if any, in order to identify the
present applicants to be the persons who have allegedly committed
theft of the articles from the institution.

¶25

3/4

¶26

8.Having regard to these facts, the following order is

¶27

passed.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) Application is allowed in terms of the interim order dated

¶30

27.06.2023 except condition no.2 which is modified as
under:

¶31

(a) Applicants are directed to remain present before the Investigating Officer on four occasions as and when called by the Investigating Officer and for the purpose of recovery, if any, they shall be deemed to be in custody of police.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

GGP

¶34

4/4

Asrar Salim Shaikh and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asrar Salim Shaikh and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudam Fakirrao Adhane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babulal S/O Devidas Rathod and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Another

Sariput Arjun Ingole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vikram Jalindar Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Juned Mansoor Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dnyaneshwar Laxman Potgunde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another