Shoheb Kasam Chandiwala And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2020 WITH CRI. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 84 OF 2020 WITH CRI. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2020 Mr. Shoheb Kasam Chandiwala and Ors.

...Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra (DCB CID Unit - XI) and Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Milan Desai i/b. Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate for the Applicants in all Applications.

Ms. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. A.P.I. Mr. Vishal Patil, DCB, CID - Unit XI present. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

DATE : 14 th JANUARY 2020.

P.C.

1.

Applicants in these applications are seeking pre-arrest bail. 2.

Applicants are accused in DCB CID Crime No.206 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

1/3

3.

Applicants were arrested on 30th November 2019 and are in judicial custody. On 30th November 2019 applicants were apprehended and on their personal search letter heads of M/s. Trimurti Greenfield Private Limited of M/s. Fairline Financial Services Private Limited and a Demand Draft in the name of Trimurti Green Private Limited were recovered. The seal of the District Collector Prayagraj, the District Collector Lucknow and Sub-Registrar Lucknow (v) and such other objectionable materials were found and accordingly seized.

4.

In these three applications three crimes were registered, the first one at Prayagraj, the second at Vibhuktikhand in Lucknow and the third at Vibhukti Khand in Lucknow. Copies of the three First Information Reports are on record, which prima facie suggest link of applicants to it. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the matter and accordingly have not gone into.

5.

Transit pre-arrest bail is normally granted when the offence is registered in the jurisdiction of another State or the place other than the jurisdiction where the applicant is residing so as to enable him to seek the appropriate orders from the Court of competent jurisdiction. 2/3

6.

In this case, the applicants are in judicial custody and therefore, in my view, this is not a fit case to extend pre-arrest bail to the applicants. 7.

Criminal Anticipatory Bail Applications are rejected. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) 3/3