Allowed

Miya Hasan Saheb Patel @ Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC15 Mar 2024ABA/89/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed an anticipatory bail application for an 81-year-old retired government servant facing charges of assault and threats. The court noted civil disputes, cooperation in investigation, and seizure of the licensed firearm justifying bail subject to conditions. The interim protection order was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application allowed confirming interim protection order dated 16.01.2024; applicant to attend police station as called and not tamper with evidence.

Miya Hasan Saheb Patel @ Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:5783

¶2

{1} 920-ABA-89-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2024

¶5

Miya Hasan Saheb Patel @ Shaikh ….Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Another …..Respondents

¶8

Mr. P.M. Nagargoje, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A.R. Kale, APP for respondents-State.

¶9

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶10

DATE : 15th MARCH, 2024

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Applicant apprehends arrest in C.R. No. 327 of 2023, registered with Yermala Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad, for offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 4 and 25 of Arms Act.

¶13

FIR is registered on the basis of direction issued by learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., at the instance of informant, wherein it is alleged that there are civil disputes going on between informant and applicant. On 27.08.2023, accused came to the agricultural land of informant and abused her by pointing rifle on her son and assaulted her son with fists and kick blows. Informant rescued her son.

¶14

Bhagyawant Punde

¶15

{2} 920-ABA-89-2024

¶16

Threats to kill her son were given by accused.

¶17

Heard learned advocate for applicant and learned APP for respondent. Perused the investigation papers.

¶18

Applicant is 81 years old retired Government servant having licensed gun. Admittedly, there are civil and revenue disputes going on between applicant and informant. In these facts, prima facie, false implication of applicant cannot be ruled out.

¶19

Applicant was granted interim protection and he has co-operated in the investigation. The gun is already seized by investigating officer. Nothing is to be recovered from applicant, therefore, his pre-trial custodial detention is not necessary.

¶20

In the result, application is allowed by confirming interim protection order dated 16.01.2024.

¶21

Till filing of charge sheet, applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by investigating officer and shall co-operate in the investigation. Applicant shall not tamper the prosecution evidence.

¶22

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶23

Bhagyawant Punde

Miya Hasan Saheb Patel @ Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miya Hasan Saheb Patel @ Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Pravin Laxman Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balasaheb Bal Jagannath Bothe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaibhav Bharat Ugale Vs State Bank of India Majalgaon Branch through Gopal Gautam Jagdand

Bhagyashree Karbhari Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Khaled Abdul Khayyum and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lakhan @ Vinod Kumar Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another