Disposed

Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2024ABA/1377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought interim protection from arrest in connection with a Lucknow FIR. The Court, without examining merits or entitlement to anticipatory bail, granted two weeks' protection from coercive action subject to conditions, enabling them to approach the competent court in Uttar Pradesh.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur and Ors. vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

908-aba-1377-2024.doc

¶3

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitally signed byMAMTA AMAR KALEDate: 2024.07.0917:02:50 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1377 of 2024

¶6

Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur Age 54 years, Occ. None

¶7

Shinova D/o. Ravindra Shyamnarayan Shukla @ Ravikishan Shukla Age 25 years Approx. Occ. Student

¶8

Rajesh Premnath Soni Age 55 years, Occ. Self Employed. All having permanent address at 701, Mangalam, Upper Sovind Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Malad (E), Maharashtra – 400 097. ..Applicants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Dindoshi Police Station)...Respondent No.1

¶11

The State of Uttar Pradesh (At the instance of Hazratganj Police Station) Having address at 03, Balmikey Marg, Hazratganj Pin Code – 226 001 Lucknow. ...Respondent No.2

¶12

Priti Rani Shukla LIG, 416, Lake View Apartment, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh ..Respondent No.3/ first informant

¶13

Mr. Parth Sanghrajka, for the Applicants. Mr. Aniket Nikam, Mr. Ameet Mehta, Ms. Digisha Modh, Mr.

¶14

page 1 of 4

¶15

Mamta Kale

¶16

908-aba-1377-2024.doc

¶17

Eshan Mishra i/b. Solicis Lex, for the Intervenor. Ms. Anuja Gotad, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶18

Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.

¶19

Date : 9 July 2024

¶20

P.C.

¶21

. Leave to amend to add the first informant as a party respondent to this application. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Mr. Nikam, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of newly added respondent.

¶22

Heard Mr. Parth Sanghrajka, learned counsel representing the applicants, Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP representing the respondent – State and Mr. Aniket Nikam, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶23

In this application, the applicants have approached this Court projecting extreme urgency in the matter for the reason that they apprehended arrest in connection with C.R. No.102 of 2024 registered at Hazaratganj Police Station, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 195, 386, 388, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are seeking limited relief of protection until they can approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking

¶25

page 2 of 4

¶26

Mamta Kale

¶27

908-aba-1377-2024.doc

¶28

anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid crime registered against them.

¶29

Learned APP has emphasized that since the FIR is registered at Hazaratganj Police Station, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, really speaking, the respondent – State would not have much to say in the matter. She suggests that even if this Court is inclined to grant relief, it may impose appropriate conditions to prevent misuse of the relief.

¶30

It is a settled position in law that the limited relief of protection can be granted to the applicants, only to facilitate approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction (N. K. Nair and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1985 Cr.L.J. 1887, Shantanu Shivlal Mulak and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 ALL MR Cri. 1380 and Shrikant Gopilal Rath and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Criminal Writ Petition No.581/2021).

¶31

This Court is not going into the merits of the matter or entitlement of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in any manner. Since there is possibility of applicants’ arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime, which cannot be said to be misplaced or imaginary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to protect the applicants for a limited period to enable them to approach the competent Court. Hence, the

¶32

page 3 of 4

¶33

Mamta Kale

¶34

908-aba-1377-2024.doc

¶35

following order.

¶36

(i) The applicants are granted protection from coercive action or arrest only for a period of two weeks from today provided the applicants during this period shall not leave the State of Maharashtra except to travel to the State of Uttar Pradesh for moving such application before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

¶37

(ii) The applicants shall inform the concerned police station of State of Maharashtra about this order passed by the Court.

¶38

(iii) Needless to say that the applicants shall not act in any manner that would be prejudicial to the investigation that may be carried out by the concerned police officer in respect of aforesaid FIR.

¶39

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

R. N. Laddha, J.

¶41

page 4 of 4

Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ratna Vikram Koli vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Iltija Hussain Gulam Sarvar Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Dhanashree Pramod Buga vs State of Maharashtra

Rajalashmi Kori Wife of Rajesh Kori vs State of Maharashtra

Hasti Navnitbhai Raichura vs State of Maharashtra

Vidyadhar Vishnu Shirodkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.