← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/1788/2024disposed off

Sayyed Masum Zakir Sayyed v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

2024-07-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale2 pages

bipin prithiani 902-aba-1788.24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1788 OF 2024 Sayyed Masum Zakir Sayyed ...

Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...

Respondents ****** Mr. Satish R. Mishra for the Applicant.

Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State. API - Ravindra Alekar, Kothrud Police Station, Pune. ****** CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 12th JULY 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for respondent-State.

2.

In the present case, the applicant was served with a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) dated 29th May 2024, in the context of C.R. No. 68 of 2024 registered at Kothrud Police Station, Dist. Pune, for offences under Sections 419 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 66(d) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

3.

The notice was issued in the backdrop that a huge amount of Rs.10,80,000/- was transferred into the account of the applicant and the Investigating Authority found that the said amount was

bipin prithiani 902-aba-1788.24.doc related to the aforesaid FIR.

4.

In this backdrop, the applicant rushed to the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. But, by order dated 26th June 2024, the Sessions Court rejected the application, observing in paragraph 5 that the explanation sought to be given by the applicant was not acceptable because the conduct of the applicant did not appear to be that of a person of ordinary prudence.

5.

Considering the facts upon which the applicant himself relies, this Court is of the opinion that the Sessions Court correctly found that the conduct of the applicant on the face of it appears to be inexplicable. He has not even responded to the notice issued under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. which is also a ground on which this Court is inclined to dismiss the present application. 6.

No case is made out for granting anticipatory bail. The application is dismissed.

MANISH PITALE, J.

Date: 2024.07.12 19:03:07 +0530 BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI