Salim Fattu Shaikh And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:3129 ABA 683/24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 928 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 683 OF 2024 SALIM FATTU SHAIKH AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. R.A. Tambe APP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. R.S. Wani Advocate for assisting APP : Mr. C.C. Deshpande ...

CORAM

: ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

Dated : January 22, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for respondents-State and Mr. C.C. Deshpande, learned advocate assisting APP. 2.

The applicants have approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 77/2024 dated 9.3.2024 registered with Mohadi Nagar Police Station, Dhule for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 407 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

3.

The case against the applicants is that the applicants have taken 200 quintals of onion from the informant directly at the price of Rs.3,60,000/- and had given assurance to the informant that money will be paid within five days. However, money was not paid to the informant. The applicants threatened the informant that he should not call them for money. Hence, the crime is registered against the applicants for aforesaid offences. 4.

This Court vide order dated 29.4.2024 has granted interim protection to the applicants. On 14.10.2024 the learned counsel for the applicants, on instruction, has suo-moto made statement before this Court that applicants are ready to deposit sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to show their bonafides.

ABA 683/24 However, thereafter till date, no amount has been deposited by the applicants in this Court.

5.

The learned APP points out that there is another similar F.I.R. registered against the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants have not cooperated with the investigation.

6.

Considering that there are antecedents against the applicants, so also prima facie involvement of the applicants in the crime is visible. Considering the above, the application stands dismissed.

7.

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) ssc/ This order is corrected by order dated 4.2.2025.