Allowed¶26

Ajmat Rajjab Khan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2025APEAL/474/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court criminal appeal anticipatory bail 3 March 2025 Shivkumar Dige J; Crime No. 296 of 2024 Sakinaka Police Station Mumbai; IPC Sections 406 409 34; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Sections 3(1)(q) 3(1)(r) 3(1)(zc) 3(1)(za)(E) 3(2)(va) 2(1)(bc-iii); partnership dispute fund transfer defamation news publication Swarnim Pradesh; delay of around three years in lodging FIR; custodial interrogation not required; interim protection since 6 May 2024; order dated 20 June 2024 of Sandeep V. Marne J confirmed; appeal allowed and disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed and stands disposed of; the order dated 20th June 2024 passed by this Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.) is confirmed, continuing the interim protection in favour of the appellants. ¶26

Ajmat Rajjab Khan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed and stands disposed of; the order dated 20th June 2024 passed by this Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.) is confirmed, continuing the interim protection in favour of the appellants.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, who apprehend arrest in Crime No.296 of 2024 (Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai) and whose anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Special Court, require custodial interrogation or are entitled to continued protection from arrest.

¶12

Court's answer

Weighing the delay of around three years in lodging the FIR, the prior business partnership between appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 during which no complaint was lodged against appellant No.1, the limited role of appellant No.2 (filing a complaint against respondent No.2 followed by publication of news), the absence of direct abuse to respondent No.2, the appellants' cooperation with the investigation and the interim protection operating since 6th May 2024, custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 20 June 2024 passed by this Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) is confirmed.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Shivkumar Dige, J., 3rd March 2025). Appellants Ajmat Rajjab Khan and another apprehended arrest in Crime No. 296 of 2024 of Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(2)(va) and added Section 2(1)(bc-iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of an allegation that appellant No.1 diverted partnership funds, false information was given and news published, and appellant No.2 lodged complaints against erstwhile partner (Respondent No.2). The Special Court had rejected their anticipatory bail application. Noting the delay of around three years in lodging the FIR, that the parties were partners in business during which no complaint was lodged against appellant No.1, the limited role of appellant No.2, absence of direct abuse to respondent No.2, the appellants' cooperation with the investigation and interim protection operating since 6th May 2024, the Judge held custodial interrogation of the appellants not required, confirmed the order dated 20th June 2024 passed by this Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.), allowed the appeal and disposed of it.

¶1

30-APEAL-474-202413 (CR).doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2024

¶4

Ajmat Rajjab Khan And Anr. … Appellants

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶7

Mr. Atal Bihari Dubey i/b. Mr. Amit S. Rane, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶8

Mr. Amit Katarnaware along with Ms. Pooja Dangre, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 3^rd MARCH, 2025.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The appellants apprehends arrest in Crime No.296 of 2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(za)(E) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police have added Section 2(1) (bc-iii) as per the order of this Court.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2025.03.10 17:34:27 +0530

¶14

It is prosecution case that the Trial Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants. It is prosecution case that appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 were partners in business. Appellant No.1 had transferred amount of business to other parties, hence, respondent No.2 started his own new business. It is alleged that

¶15

1/3

¶16

30-APEAL-474-202413 (CR).doc

¶17

Shubhada S Kadam

¶18

thereafter, appellant No.1 gave false information and news was published by appellant No.2 in newspaper ‘Swarnim Pradesh’. It is alleged that appellant No.2 lodged complaint against respondent No.2 with concerned authorities.

¶19

It is contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of around four years in lodging the complaint. Appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 were partners in business. News was published on 28^th February 2021 and case was filed in the year 2024. The role of appellant No.2 is that he lodged complaint against respondent No.2. Interim protection is operating in favour of the appellants since 6^th May 2024. The appellants have co-operated with the investigation, their custodial interrogation is not required and requested to allow the appeal. 4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for respondent No.2 that appellant No.1 has cheated respondent No.2 by transferring the amount from their joint account to other parties. Thereafter, appellant No.2 filed false complaint against respondent No.2 with the concerned authorities. False news was published in newspaper causing defamation of respondent No.2. The appellants were aware about the caste of respondent No.2, in spite of that, they defamed respondent No.2. Considering allegations allegations against them, their custodial interrogation is required and requested to dismiss the appeal.

¶20

2/3

¶21

30-APEAL-474-202413 (CR).doc

¶22

Shubhada S Kadam

¶23

I have heard all learned counsel, perused the FIR, documents produced on record and the impugned order passed by learned Special Court. There is delay of around three years in lodging the FIR. The appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 were partners in business. During that partnership, respondent No.2 has not lodged any complaint against appellant No.1. The role of appellant No.2 is that he had filed complaint against respondent No.2 and, thereafter, news was published against respondent No.2. There is no direct abuse to respondent No.2 by the appellants. The interim protection is operating in favour of the appellants since 6^th May 2024.The appellants are co-operating with the investigation. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required and I pass following order :

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The order dated 20^th June 2024 passed by this Court (Coram : Sandeep V. Marne, J.) is confirmed.

¶26

The appeal is allowed in above terms and stands disposed of.

¶27

1. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶29

3/3

Ajmat Rajjab Khan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmat Rajjab Khan and Anr. v. 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

Heramb Rajendra Sonawane vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

National Insurance Company Limited Thr. Mumbai Regional Office, Mumbai vs Vishwanath Sitaram Patil and Ors.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through the General Manager vs Shri. Surendra Digambar Kolate

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs Gorakhnath Bhikaji Borhade and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai vs Sachin Ramchandra Ballal and Ors.

Jalinder Babaji Ware vs State of Maharashtra