Dismissed

Nisha Davashish Ghosh v. Farida Jamal Ansari

Bombay HC18 Nov 2024APPLN/86/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applications seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC. Investigation complete, charge sheet filed, no misuse of bail or interference shown. Criminal antecedents alone insufficient to revoke liberty; applications rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nisha Davashish Ghosh vs Farida Jamal Ansari — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

CHITRASANJAYSONAWANE Digitally signed byCHITRA SANJAYSONAWANEDate: 2024.11.1918:31:38 +0530

¶2

Mamta Kale.

¶3

57.appln86,87-24.docx

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Criminal Application No.86 of 2024

¶6

Nisha Devashish Ghosh Aged about 66 years, Adult, Indian inhabitant, Residing at B/301 Trimurti Apartment, Land mark Manvelpada Talav Thane, Virar 401 303, Dist. Palghar

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Farida Jamal Ansari Aged about 73 years, Indian Inhabitant Residing at Flat No.12, 4^th Floor, Gulam Hussain Bldg., VA Patel Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007

¶10

Mansoor Jamal Ansari Age: 33 years, Residing at Flat No.12, 4^th Floor, Gulam Hussain Bldg., VA Patel Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007

¶11

The State of Maharashtra at the instance of Senior Inspector of Police, DB Marg Police Station, Mumbai … Respondents

¶12

With

¶13

Criminal Application No.87 of 2024

¶14

Nisha Devashish Ghosh

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

18 November 2024

¶17

Mamta Kale. 57.appln86,87-24.docx

¶18

Aged about 66 years, Adult, Indian inhabitant, Residing at B/301 Trimurti Apartment, Land mark Manvelpada Talav Thane, Virar 401 303, Dist. Palghar

¶19

… Applicant

¶20

Versus

¶21

Shahzad Rabbani Shaikh Aged about 47 years, Indian Inhabitant Residing at Room No.5, 1^st Floor, Zora Manzil Annex 20-3-B, SVP Road, Dongri, Mumbai – 400 009

¶22

Mohammed Nabi Qureshi Aged about 47 years, Indian inhabitant, Residing at Flat No.34, 3^rd Floor, 153B Transval Terrace, Grant Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007

¶23

Aveshahmed Attulla Khan Aged about 47 years, Indian inhabitant, Residing at Ashiana Guest House, Isharat Chambers, MS Ali Road, Mumbai – 400 007

¶24

The State of Maharashtra at the instance of Senior Inspector of Police, DB Marg Police Station, Mumbai

¶25

… Respondents

¶26

Mr Sachin Jahangir Wadia, present on behalf of the applicant. Mr Shailendra Agharkar, for respondents/ accused. Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the respondent/ State.

Page 2 of 5

18 November 2024

Mamta Kale.

57.appln86,87-24.docx

¶31

API Vikas Raut, VP Road Police Station, is present.

¶32

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 18 November 2024.

¶33

P.C.:

¶34

Heard Mr Sachin Jahangir Wadia present on behalf of the applicant; Mr Shailendra Agharkar, for respondents/ accused; and Mr Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State.

¶35

The applicant has preferred these applications seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents/ accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶36

The applicant’s contention is that the learned Judge overlooked the substantive merits of the prosecution’s case when granting anticipatory bail. Further, the investigating officer colluding with the accused, failed to conduct a proper investigation. Additionally, the applicant’s criminal antecedents were not presented before the Sessions Court during the anticipatory bail proceedings.

¶37

In this context, it is a settled principle in law that at the preliminary bail stage, the Court should not undertake a

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

18 November 2024

¶40

Mamta Kale. 57.appln86,87-24.docx

¶41

detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case. The primary consideration lies in the prima facie scrutiny of the material on record. Furthermore, once granted, the bail should not be cancelled mechanically unless there are compelling and supervening circumstances, such as the risk of jeopardising a fair trial.

¶42

Upon perusing the records, it is evident that the alleged offence occurred in 2023. Since then, the investigation has been completed, culminating in the filing of a charge sheet. There is nothing on record to indicate that the accused interfered with the prosecution’s evidence or attempted to influence the witnesses. Furthermore, the records do not suggest that the accused misused the bail concession granted to them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appropriately limited the scope of adjudication to the prima facie material, refraining from delving into the merits of the case, as per legal principles. Regarding the allegation that the investigating officer colluded with the accused, nothing has been presented to support this claim. While accused’s criminal antecedents are noted, they alone cannot justify restricting the liberty granted to them. That apart, at this stage, with the investigation concluded, the charge sheet filed, and no compelling grounds arising post bail, this

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

18 November 2024

¶45

Mamta Kale. 57.appln86,87-24.docx

¶46

Court finds no justification to revoke the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents/ accused.

¶47

Accordingly, the applications stand rejected.

¶48

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

18 November 2024

Nisha Davashish Ghosh v. Farida Jamal Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nisha Davashish Ghosh v. Farida Jamal Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Paraji Dhondiba Pachudkar vs State of Maharashtra

Dashrath Vitthal Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shantanu Dhananjay Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra

Azaz Ahmad Shrfuddin and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Waris Ali Ebrahim Khan vs the Income Tax Department and Anr.

Suryakant Ramchandra Avaghade vs Deepak Eknath Dalvi and Ors.