Allowed¶44

Shaadab Harunali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Jul 2024IA/622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail ALLOWED - ABA 363/2023, High Court of Bombay, R.N. Laddha J., decided 04-09-2024; applicant Armana Naeem Bux; CR 189/2022 Koparkhairane Police Station; IPC Sections 363, 392, 354, 504, 506, 509, 120-B, 452, 342 r/w 34; FIR by sister-in-law; interim protection since 07-02-2023 made absolute on same terms; investigation over, custodial interrogation unnecessary; co-accused on bail; tampering apprehension met by conditions; intervenor Shaadab Harunali Khan (IA 622/2024) absent; counsel: Vinay Kate for applicant, MG Patil APP for State.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted: ad-interim order dated 7 February 2023 made absolute on the same terms and conditions; application disposed of accordingly; pending Interim Application No.622 of 2024 also disposed of as a sequel. ¶44

Shaadab Harunali Khan vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail should be granted to the applicant Armana Naeem Bux in connection with CR No.189 of 2022 of Koparkhairane Police Station.

¶32

Court's answer

The anticipatory bail application is allowed: the ad-interim order dated 7 February 2023 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions; the application stands disposed of and, as a sequel, the pending application (Interim Application No.622 of 2024) also stands disposed of.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Grounds for the grant: the applicant had been under interim protection since 7 February 2023, attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation; the investigation is over and custodial interrogation is not necessary; the co-accused are already arrested and released on bail by the learned Magistrate; and the prosecution's apprehension of tampering with witnesses and evidence can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.N. Laddha, J.) allowed Anticipatory Bail Application No.363 of 2023 filed by Armana Naeem Bux in connection with CR No.189 of 2022 of Koparkhairane Police Station (offences punishable under IPC Sections 363, 392, 354, 504, 506, 509, 120-B, 452 and 342 r/w 34), registered on an FIR by the applicant's sister-in-law alleging kidnapping of her husband, assault and robbery of jewellery and property documents. The Court noted the applicant had been under interim protection since 7 February 2023 and had cooperated with the investigation; the APP acknowledged the investigation was over, custodial interrogation unnecessary, and the co-accused already released on bail by the Magistrate; the apprehension of tampering with witnesses and evidence was held capable of being addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. The ad-interim order dated 7 February 2023 was made absolute on the same terms and conditions; the pending Interim Application No.622 of 2024 (intervenor Shaadab Harunali Khan, for whom none appeared) also stood disposed of.

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2024.09.08 01:30:43 +0530

¶2

CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

¶3

Chitra Sonawane.

¶4

7.aba363-23.doc

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.363 of 2023

¶6

Armana Naeem Bux Age 30 years, residing at Chaudhary Manzil, 4^th Floor, 404, Plot E 168, Sector 12, Koperkhairne, Navi Mumbai – 400 709

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

v/s.

¶9

State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Koperkhairne Police Station, bearing CR No.189 of 2022)

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

With

¶12

Interim Application No.622 of 2024

¶13

¶14

Anticipatory Bail Application No.363 of 2023

¶15

Shaadab Harunali Khan Aged about 36 years, R/o. Room No.402/403, Chaudhary Manzil, Fourth Floor, Plot No.168, Sector 12 E, Khoparkhairne, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶16

...Intervenor

¶17

In the matter of:

¶18

Armana Naeem Bux Age 30 years, residing at Chaudhary Manzil, 4^th Floor, Plot No.168, Sector 12E, Koperkhairne, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra …Applicant

Vs.

Page 1 of 4

4 September 2024

Chitra Sonawane.

7.aba363-23.doc

State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Koperkhairne Police Station, bearing CR No.189 of 2022)

¶25

...Respondent

¶26

Mr Vinay Kate, a/w. Mr Chaitanya Shirasao and Mr Abhishek Godse, for the applicant.

¶27

Mr MG Patil, APP, for the respondent/ State. None for the Intervenor.

¶28

PSI Vaibhav Navale, Koparkhairane Police Station, is present.

¶29

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 4 September 2024

¶30

P.C.:

¶31

Heard Mr Vinay Kate, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr MG Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State.

¶32

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.189 of 2022, registered at Koparkhairane Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 392, 354, 504, 506, 509, 120-B, 452 and 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered based on the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the applicant’s sister-in-law. The informant alleges that the applicant, her sister-in-law, and the co-accused, the family members, kidnapped her husband, assaulted her with fist blows, and robbed her jewellery and property documents.

Page 2 of 4

4 September 2024

7.aba363-23.doc

Chitra Sonawane.

The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant’s brother, who is the informant’s husband, was addicted to drugs and, therefore, required treatment at rehab centre. The informant’s husband was taken to the rehab centre, which episode is being misused by the informant to say that he was being kidnapped. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, and the informant’s husband was brought back to his residence by the applicant.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He submits that the offence is serious and the applicant may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. However, the learned APP acknowledges that the investigation is over and the applicant’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. He further informs the Court that a charge sheet has been filed against the co-accused, and they are released on bail by the learned Magistrate.

¶39

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the applicant has been under interim protection since 7 February 2023, attended the Police Station and cooperated with the investigation. The coaccused have been arrested and released on bail by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, the learned APP, on instructions, acknowledges that the applicant’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. The prosecution’s apprehension of tampering with the

Page 3 of 4

4 September 2024

7.aba363-23.doc

Chitra Sonawane.

witnesses and evidence can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. In the circumstances, the present application is allowed. The ad-interim order dated 7 February 2023 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The application stands disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, the pending application also stands disposed of.

¶45

[ R.N. Laddha, J.]

¶46

Page 4 of 4

¶47

4 September 2024

Shaadab Harunali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaadab Harunali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ahmed Mohammed Parmar vs State of Maharashtra

Mirza Dilshad Baig Mirza Zakaullah Baig and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Salman Irfan Bang vs State of Maharashtra

Anmol Arun Jaisinghani vs State of Maharashtra

Brijesh Krishnraj Singh vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepali Balkrishna Parab vs the State of Maharashtra