Allowed

Faizal a Wahid v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2023IA/229/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an appellant convicted of cheating and conspiracy. The court directed release on furnishing a bond, noting the short sentence, deposit of fines, prior bail history, and that merits are reserved for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the Appellant on bail with P.R. bond of Rs.30,000/- and one or two sureties in like amount.

Faizal a Wahid Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

13-ia-229-23

¶2

1 of 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2023
IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2023

¶6

Faizal A. Wahid..Applicant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ayush Pasbola a/w. Siddharth Mehta for Appellant.
Mr. K. S. Patil for Respondent No.1 – C.B.I.
Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 20 JANUARY 2023

¶9

PC :

¶10

1.The Applicant was the original accused No.3. He was
convicted and sentenced by learned Special Judge (CBI) Greater
Bombay vide his Judgment and order dated 20/12/2022 passed in
CBI Special Case No.95 of 2000. The Applicant was convicted for

¶11

commission of offence punishable U/s.420 r/w. 120-B of the I.P.C.
and also U/s.120-B of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to suffer R.I. for

¶12

six months for each of the offences and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs
for the offence punishable U/s.120-B of the I.P.C. and in default to

¶13

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.01.23 11:10:48 Gokhale +0530

¶14

suffer R.I. for one month. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of

¶15

2 of 413-ia-229-23

¶16

Rs.4,50,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.420 r/w. 120-B of the
I.P.C. and in default to undergo R.I. for one month. The substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently. Thus, substantive
sentence was for six months; besides imposition of fine.

¶17

2.The prosecution case is that the applicant was one of the
Directors of M/s. East West Travel and Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. This
company was operating M/s. East West Airlines. In the year 1995,
pursuant to the meeting between M/s. East West Airlines and the
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. an arrangement of payment of fuel was
decided between themselves. The East West Airlines was to fax
copies of Demand Drafts/Pay Order/Bankers Cheque to Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. payable at Mumbai and thereafter the fuel was to
be supplied. M/s. East West Airlies sent 29 copies of such demand
drafts from 21/03/1996 to 21/05/1996 for Rs.1.73 Crores. In fact,
those Demand Drafts were not actually sent to I.O.C.L. and they
were cancelled. Thus, there was a cheating to the tune of Rs.1.73
crores.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

¶19

3 of 413-ia-229-23

¶20

applicant has deposited the entire fine amount of Rs.6,50,000/-.
The Applicant was on bail during trial and even after his
conviction he was granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c. for a limited
period. He has no other criminal antecedents. He has not misused
the liberty. On merits, he submitted that the prosecution witnesses
No.1 and 2 who were from I.O.C.L. have deposed against him that
he was also present in the meeting, but the role attributed to him

¶21

is in the nature of omission from their previous statements. He
submitted that the applicant is roped in only because of vicarious
liability and he has not played any role.

¶22

4.Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed this application
on merits. However, he conceded that the sentence is short.

¶23

5.I have considered these submissions. On merits, the
points raised by learned counsel for the Applicant will have to be
decided at the final hearing stage. The fine amount is already
deposited. The applicant was on bail during trial and he has not
misused that liberty. Even after his conviction he was granted bail
U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c. The sentence is short. The Appeal is not

¶24

4 of 413-ia-229-23

¶25

likely to be decided within that short period. Considering all these

¶26

factors, the applicant can be granted bail pending final disposal of
his Appeal.

¶27

6.Hence, the following order:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

i)During pendency and final disposal of Criminal

¶30

Appeal No.50 of 2023, the Applicant is directed
to be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond

¶31

in the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.

¶32

ii)The Application is disposed of.

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Faizal a Wahid v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizal a Wahid v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

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

Shankar Dipak Jagdale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Maruti Nanaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Maruti Nanaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishnumurti Venkatnarsayya Bairi Vs State of Maharashtra

Raju Harishchandra Longale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sujit Narayan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.