Allowed

Haaresh Kanhayamal Waardani v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jul 2024IA/2149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought confirmation of interim anticipatory bail. The State cited non-cooperation and 13 pending criminal cases; the applicant noted prior interim protection from the Supreme Court and the Sessions Court in similar FIRs. Finding material insufficient to directly link the applicant to the offences, the Court made the interim order absolute subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 19.06.2024 made absolute; applicant bound by conditions including presence before Investigating Officer as and when called.

Haaresh Kanhayamal Waardani vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

23_ABA_1506_24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1506 OF 2024

¶3

Naresh Sajandas Rohra

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2149 OF 2024

¶9

¶10

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1506 OF 2024

¶11

Mr. Amit Singh for applicant (through video-conferencing).

¶12

Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, APP for respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Shesh Pandurang More, Police Inspector, Local Crime Department, Kolhapur.

¶14

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 09^th JULY, 2024

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

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

¶17

By a detailed order dated 19.06.2024, this Court granted interim relief to the applicant, with a specific direction that he would remain present before the Investigating Officer on 25.06.2024 and 26.06.2024 and thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. This Court is informed that as per the direction, the applicant remained present before the Investigating Officer.

¶18

1/3

¶19

23_ABA_1506_24.doc

¶20

The learned APP submits on instructions that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation.

¶21

This is disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant and he submits that the documents demanded by the Investigating Officer, including aadhar card, bank account details, etc. were all provided and that the applicant has been co-operating with the investigation.

¶22

The learned APP further highlighted that there are as many as 13 criminal cases registered against the applicant and that therefore, this Court may not show any indulgence to the applicant.

¶23

The order dated 19.06.2024 recorded in detail as to why the applicant had made out a case for granting interim relief. It was specifically noted that in another FIR concerning identical allegations, the Supreme Court has granted interim protection to the applicant. It was also noted that the applicant was granted interim protection by the Sessions Court in another FIR registered at District Dhule.

¶24

The 13 criminal cases of which reference is made by the learned APP, indicates that there are certain cases registered against the applicant for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶25

Nevertheless, there is substance in the contention reiterated on behalf of the applicant that the material on record in the present case, falls short of directly linking the applicant with the offences in question and that identical

¶26

2/3

¶27

23_ABA_1506_24.doc

¶28

allegations have been made on the basis of which FIRs have been registered at different police stations.

¶29

It is relevant to note that the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court is still continuing. In that light and on an assurance on behalf of the applicant that he would continue to co-operate with the investigation, for the reasons stated in the order dated 19.06.2024 and upon appreciating the contentions raised today on behalf of the applicant as well as by the learned APP, this Court is inclined to make the interim order dated 19.06.2024, absolute.

¶30

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the interim order dated 19.06.2024 is made absolute, with a specific direction to the applicant to abide by all the conditions specified in paragraph No.15 of the said order. The applicant shall continue to remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when called.

¶31

11. The application is disposed of.

¶32

In view of disposal of anticipatory bail application, the intervention application is also disposed of.

¶33

(MANISH PITALE, J)

¶34

PRIYAKAMBLI Digitallysigned byPRIYAKAMBLIDate:2024.07.0917:02:09+0530 Priya Kambli

¶35

3/3

Haaresh Kanhayamal Waardani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haaresh Kanhayamal Waardani v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ali Asgar Pervez Siraji vs State of Maharashtra

Shishir Mangesh Shivapurkar vs State of Maharashtra

Atif Mohd. Harun Mansuri @ Atif Mohd. Haroon Mansuri vs the State of Maharashtra

Hyacinth Uzoigwe vs State of Maharashtra

Mohd Rashid Abdul Shabbir Siddiqui vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Namdeo Ingale vs State of Maharashtra