Mohd. Salim Qureshi v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 of 2 21.ABA.576.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.576 OF 2021 Mohd. Salim Qureshi Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Satyaram R. Gaud for applicant.

Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP, for State.

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 16th March 2021 PC :

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.88 of 2021 registered with Dharavi Police Station for offences under Sections 363, 341, 394, 324, 504, 506(ii) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code along with Sections 37(1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. 2.

The FIR was lodged on 12th February 2021. The complainant has alleged that on 9th February 2021 the accused-applicant had obstructed the complainant and threatened him by showing chopper. He was forced to sit on a scooter and abducted. He was taken to the place of incident near Sanjay Chawl. The associates of main accused namely Naved, Kopcha and Asif then assaulted him with fists and kick blows. The applicant pointed out the chopper and took away Manish S. Thatte Manish S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.18 11:16:15 +0530 amount of Rs.8,110/- from his pocket.

3.

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Custodial interrogation of the

2 of 2 21.ABA.576.2021.doc applicant is not necessary. There is delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant had tendered affidavit before Sessions Court stating that the FIR was registered in Marathi language and it was not read over to him in his vernacular language. There is settlement between parties.

4.

The application preferred before the Sessions Court was rejected. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged on 13th February 2021 for offences under Section 354 IPC against present complainant by Vahida Salim Qureshi (wife of applicant). 5.

Learned APP submitted that the offence is of serious nature. About 10 cases were registered against applicant in the past. He is involved in serious offences. Several times preventive measures were initiated against him. He is creating terror in the locality. He was externed.

6.

Considering the contents of FIR, role assigned to the applicant and criminal antecedents, no case for granting relief is made out. Hence, anticipatory bail application is rejected. 7.

this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST