Dismissed

Hazi Rauf Mehbub Bombaywala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2016MCRC/2373/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a bail application filed by Hazi Rauf Mehbub Bombaywala. The applicant, accused under Sections 420 IPC and 138 NI Act for allegedly cheating pilgrims and issuing dishonoured cheques, was denied bail. The court found the applicant responsible and deemed the gravity of cheating religious sentiments a deterrent to granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Hazi Rauf Mehbub Bombaywala Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 2373 of 2016

¶4

Hazi Rauf Mehbub Bombaywala S/O Mehbub Fareed Bhai Bombaywala Aged About 35 Years Caste - Muslim, Al-Quba Tour & Travels, R/O 202 Investment House, Ratnamani Complex, In Front Of Gandhi Gram Railway Station, Elisi Bridge, Police Chowky Jamalpur, P.S. Gaikwad Haweli, Ahmedabad, (Gujarat) 380006

¶5

---- Applicant Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kanker, Civil & Revenue District - Kanker Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. K.A. Ansari, Sr. Advocate with Mr/ Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board

¶9

04.07.2016

¶10

This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 17-02-2015 in connection with Crime No.68 of 2015 registered at Police Station Kanker, Civil & Revenue District Kanker (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, the applicant sent pamphlets in the mosques of Chhattisgarh stating that he is the proprietor of the AlQuba Tour and Travels and makes arrangements to faciltate the transportation of pilgrims going to Haz and Umra. Complainant Mohammad Haneef contacted the applicant through his mobile phone and deposited Rs.75,572/- in the account of the applicant for the said purpose and likewise other complainants namely Mohammad Asif also deposited Rs.1,13,360/-, Mohamad Saraf

¶12

deposited Rs.80,000/- and Mohammad Imran deposited Rs.1,01,000/- in the name of the applicant, but subsequently these persons were not faciltiated pilgrimage and were deceived by the applicant and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant was not directy involved in the matter and he was a new comer in the business and it was Taufeeque who played fraud with the complainants. He would further submit that when the complainants asked the money deposited by them, the applicant returned back the amount to the complainants through cheques which would show the entire story of the prosecution as belated. He would further submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 17-2-2015, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶14

Per contra , learned State counsel opposing the bail application would submit that there is sufficient evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and other documents which would show that the persons were duped in name of pilgrimage and when such pilgrimage did not materialise, the applicant as a gesture of return issued cheques which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the applicant. Therefore, the complainants were deceived by the applicant.

¶16

Taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and considering the fact that after depositing the amount complainants were not allowed to pilgrimage and fraud was played on religious sentiments and the cheques issued in the names of the complianants by the

¶17

applicant were dishonoured, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is liable to be and is hereby dismissed

¶19

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶20

Raju

Hazi Rauf Mehbub Bombaywala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazi Rauf Mehbub Bombaywala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Sunil Kumar Agrawal @ Bhagat @ Pramod Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Chandraker and Others Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramnarayan Sarthi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lalit Katale Vs State Of Chhattisgarh