Disposed

Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Jalil v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Jalgaon, Jamod Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2024ABA/40/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 420 IPC regarding adulterated and short-weight cement. Court found the dispute prima facie civil in nature, offence punishable under seven years, applicant cooperating with investigation; custodial interrogation not required.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim protection granted on 16/01/2024 confirmed on same terms and conditions.

Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Jalil Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:5004

¶3

923.aba.40.24.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.40 OF 2024 (Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Jalil Vs. State of Maharashtra)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. G.R. Giripunje, Advocate for the applicant. Ms S. Haider, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED :- APRIL 25, 2024.

¶9

By this application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.757/2023 registered with Police Station Jalgaon Jamod, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The applicant is apprehending arrest at the hands of police, as crime is registered on an allegation that the complainant has obtained some gunny bags of the cement from the present applicant and on verification, it reveals that there is an adulteration in the said cement as well as the weight of the cement bag was also less. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as the present applicant is concerned he is the dealer dealing with the said cement of Ultra Tech Company, he is not the manufacturer, therefore, as far as adulteration is concerned he is not concerned about it. He

¶12

¶13

923.aba.40.24.odt

¶14

submitted that as far as the weight is concerned he is only the dealer and delivered the stock to the customers. It is further submitted that considering the allegation, the dispute is of a civil nature. Hence, the custodial interrogation is not required and he be released on anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned APP strongly opposed the application on the ground that with intent to dupe the informant, the present applicant has adulterated the cement as well as the weight of the cement is also less, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required and prays for rejection of the application.

¶16

I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Considering the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, prima facie it appears that the dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil nature. Moreover, the offence alleged is punishable with less than seven years. In view of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Investigating Officer has to verify whether the arrest of the present applicant is necessary. Considering that the applicant is already attending the police station and cooperating with the investigating agency, his custodial interrogation is not required. In view of that ad-interim protection granted to him deserves to be confirmed.

¶17

Hence, the application is allowed and the ad-interim protection granted to the present applicant

¶18

¶19

923.aba.40.24.odt

¶20

vide order dated 16/01/2024 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

¶21

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶23

*Divya

Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Jalil v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Jalgaon, Jamod Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Saleem Shaikh Jalil v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Jalgaon, Jamod Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.

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

Jageshwar Dhondu Bhonde Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Goregaon, Gondia and Another.

Arif S/O Ashraf Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Station House Officer, Rana Pratap Nagar P.S., Nagpur.

Baharudin Bin Mohamed S/O Yunus @ Mike Lusi @ Baharuddin Yunus Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Ranapratap Nagar (Economic Wing) Nagpur

Deochand @ Deva Fattuji Borkar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Rawanwadi, Tah. and Dist. Gondia and Another.

Ajay S/O. Nandkumar Nagpure Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Buldana City, Dist. Buldhana

Rupesh S/O. Pundlikrao Mandokar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Karanja (Ghatge), Tah. Karanja (Ghatge) Dist. Wardha and Another.