← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/3388/2022disposed off

Asif Abdul Shakur Supariwala v. State Of Maharashtra

2022-12-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar2 pages

1/2 902-aba-3388-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3388 OF 2022 Asif Abdul Shakur Supariwala ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent.

Mr. Asif Ali i/b M/s. A.A. Siddiquie and Associates. Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent/State

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

06.12.2022.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.

2.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.56 of 2022 registered at Pen police station, Raigad for the ofences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468 & 471 read 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State. 4.

One Bhavesh Amrut Patel was accused in C.R. No.54 of 2021 registered at Dadar Sagari police station for the ofences punishable under Sections 420, 328, 272, 273 of the IPC. He was released on bail on execution of bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount. According to the prosecution, the co-accused in the present crime namely Sunil Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2

2/2 902-aba-3388-22.doc Ramu Chavan and Vijay Govind Kule stood as sureties for said Bhavesh Patel. According to the prosecution on verifcation the Ration Cards submitted by the co-accused Ramu Chavan and Vijay Kale were found to be forged.

5.

According to the prosecution, the sureties in question were arranged by the present applicant.

6.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged forgery. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation as nothing is to be recovered at the instance of present applicant. However, according to Advocate Ameya Mhatre, who submitted the bail bonds to the Court, the sureties were arranged by the present applicant. Considering the nature of allegation and as the applicant is involved in seven more cases of similar nature, I am not inclined to release him on anticipatory bail. Hence, Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2