← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/434/2015others disposed off

Shakir Mutiullah Khan v. The State Of Maharashtra

2015-03-25Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Bhatkar2 pages

903.ABA434_2015.doc Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 434 OF 2015 Shakir Mutiullah Khan ... Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State.

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE : 25th March, 2015.

P.C.

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail, as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 419, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, which is registered at C.R. No. 15 of 2014 with Shivajinagar Police Station, Pune.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused along with one notary, i.e., accused no. 1 has prepared a forged document in the name of the complainant with a view to get some advantageous position to the applicant/accused.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the investigation is complete. The police have arrested the notary and the notary is released on bail. He further submitted the register of the

903.ABA434_2015.doc notary is also seized. There is no need for the custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused. Therefore, he be granted pre-arrest bail. He further submitted that the lady who filed the complaint has in fact also filed the complaint under Domestic Violence Act for the applicant to marry to her, however, the said complaint is withdrawn by her. He submitted that the complainant is making contrary and false statement. Therefore, he prays for anticipatory bail.

4.

Learned APP opposed the Application and produced relevant documents and papers of investigation before the Court. 5.

The applicant is facing the charge of making a forged document with the help of the notary. The offence is very serious. It is necessary to find out who has forged the said affidavit of the complainant. I am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail. Hence, the Application is rejected.

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)