Allowed

Asha @ Narmada Soheb Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jan 2024BA/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's bail application. She was charged with theft involving gold ornaments. The court noted she had been in custody for over three years and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. She was released on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

Asha @ Narmada Soheb Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

5-ba-94-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.94 OF 2024

¶4

Asha @ Narmada Soheb Khan ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Shrivang Sawalkar a/w. Ms. Sabiha Sayed, Ms. Manjiri Dhuri, Ms. Sunanda Shinde, Ms. Pallavi Jadhav and Ms. Mumtaz Mulani, for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP, for the Respondent/State. Mr. R.S. Sonawane, Sr. PI, Crime Branch, Ulhasnagar.

¶7

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : JANUARY 12, 2024

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶10

The applicant who is arraigned in C.R. No. 380 of 2021 registered with Ulhasnagar police station for the offences punishable under section 381 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 seeks to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

The first informant lodged a report with the allegations that the applicant was working as a housemaid with the first informant since one month prior to the alleged occurrence.

¶12

The applicant had allegedly committed theft of the gold ornaments worth Rs. 4,68,000/- on 2^nd December, 2021.

Vishal Parekar

...1

5-ba-94-2024.doc

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been in custody for more than three years. It is unlikely that the trial can be concluded in near future.

¶17

The learned APP stoutly resisted the prayer for bail. It was submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender. Number of identical offences have been registered against the applicant during the period 2007 to 2020. The applicant will indulge in identical offences if released on bail. It was further submitted that the stolen property worth Rs. 4,50,000/- has been recovered from the applicant.

¶18

I have perused the allegations in the FIR and the documents annexed with the report under section 173 of the Code. The report submitted by the investigating officer indicates that a number of crimes have been registered against the applicant.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in none of the offences the applicant has been convicted.

¶20

The offence punishable under section 381 of the Penal Code entails punishment for seven years. The applicant has been in custody for more than three years. It is unlikely that the trial can be concluded in near future. In the circumstances, the applicant deserves exercise of discretion. The apprehension on the part of the prosecution can be taken care by imposing conditions.

Vishal Parekar

...2

5-ba-94-2024.doc

Hence, the following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

1] The application is allowed.

¶27

2] The applicant Asha @ Narmada Soheb Khan be released on bail in C.R. No.380 of 2021 registered with Ulhasnagar police station, on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶28

3] The applicant shall mark her presence at Ulhasnagar police station on the first Monday of every alternate month in between 11 am to 1 pm till conclusion of trial.

¶29

4] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶30

5] The applicant shall furnish her contact number and residential address to the investigating officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

¶31

6] The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

¶32

7] By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of

Vishal Parekar

...3

5-ba-94-2024.doc

the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶37

Application disposed.

¶38

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶39

Vishal Parekar

¶40

...4

Asha @ Narmada Soheb Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha @ Narmada Soheb Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

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

The Custodian Vs Rep With Reg to Audit of Accounts of Fairgrowth Investments Ltd.

Arif Anwar Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akshay Jitendra Dulgach Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Mehta Vs the Custodian

Shakil Abbas Kondkari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pritim Rameshkumar Jain Vs State of Maharashtra