Sayed Ahmedali Hashmi vs the State of Maharashtra

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.249 of 2024 registered with Badlapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2019 the first informant had handed over the possession of two dumpers owned by him, bearing registration Nos. MH 05 AM 2855 and MH 05 AM 2854 to the Applicant on rent basis. The allegations against the Applicant are that he

¶21

1 of 3

¶22

Mugdha

¶23

2 910-ABA 3102-25 @ IA.doc

¶24

had not paid the rent and when the first informant had asked him to return his vehicles, he threatened him of dire consequences.

¶25

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for the first informant.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that with some ulterior motive, false allegations are made against the Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn my attention to the agreement dated 15^th March 2019 between the Applicant and the first informant. It is submitted that in the said agreement, there is no reference of handing over the possession of dumpers. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary and the Applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶27

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State and Learned Counsel for the first informant submit that there are independent witnesses, in whose presence the possession of dumpers was handed over to the Applicant. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary to recover the dumpers. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶28

I have perused the FIR. Prima-facie there appears to be a delay in lodging the FIR. Apart from that, there is no document to show that the possession of the dumpers was handed over to the present Applicant. In

¶29

2 of 3

¶30

Mugdha

¶31

3 910-ABA 3102-25 @ IA.doc

¶32

that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶35

ii. In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Crime No.249 of 2024 registered with Badlapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860., he shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶36

iii. The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called for by the investigating officer and shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶37

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶38

The Interim Application for intervention stand disposed of.

¶39

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶40

3 of 3

¶41

Mugdha

Sayed Ahmedali Hashmi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Ahmedali Hashmi 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

Vandana Shah vs Sanjeev Doshi

Gurmeet Singh Labana vs State of Maharashtra

Anand Kumar Verma and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Sharif Mohammed Bapu Thottyli vs State of Maharashtra

Harsh Ashok Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjiv S/O Shankar Avhad vs the State of Maharashtra