Mukhtar Sorab Ansari v. The State Of Maharashtra

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2231 OF 2017 Mukhtar Sorab Ansari ... Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ----- Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b Ateet Shirodkar for Applicant. Ms A.A. Takalkar, APP for State.

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J.

DATE : 22nd DECEMBER 2017 P.C.:

1] The applicant is apprehending arrest in CR No.I-136 of 2017 dated 07.05.2017 registered with Rabale MIDC Police Station, Navi Mumbai under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 135, 37(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act. 2] It is the prosecution case that, the applicant along with four accused persons was preparing to commit dacoity at Unbreco Company situated at Navi Mumbai. After receipt of the said information, the police conducted raid and three accused persons were apprehended on the spot. It is the further case of prosecution that, the applicant along with other 1/3

accused person fled away from the scene of offence. After completion of investigation, the police have submitted chargesheet in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 3.7.2017.

3] It is the specific prosecution case that, since the date of registration of the crime, the applicant is absconding and was not traceable at his known place of residence.

The record clearly indicates that after the police apprehended three accused persons at the spot, the name of the present applicant surfaced on record as one of the co-accused in the said crime. From the date of offence, the applicant made himself scarce and was not traceable during the course of investigation. The Trial Court in its Order dated 11.12.2017 has observed that, there are ten other crimes lodged against the applicant under Section 380 and other related sections of the Indian Penal Code. The lodgment of ten number of crimes against the applicant indubitably shows the propensity of the applicant towards criminality coupled with the fact that he was absconding since registration of the present crime.

4] After taking into consideration the antecedents against the applicant, serious allegations against the applicant and the gravity of the 2/3

offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

Application is accordingly rejected.

(A.S.GADKARI, J.) 3/3