Naazneen Maneck Katrak v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2492 OF 2025 Naazneen Maneck Katrak ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Mihir Desai i/b Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. B. V. Holambe, APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

12.09.2025.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for Anticipatory Bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No. 224 of 2025 registered at Palghar Police Station Dist-Palghar for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The applicant is the owner of Mustang Enterprises. The said Enterprise has a factory unit at Palghar. 1/4

4.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.08.2025, the workers working in the factory were stopped by factory administration and they were told that if they wanted to work, they would have to work 12 hours and they were prevented from entering the factory. It is alleged that on 05.08.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., the said workers stopped the car of the applicant at the factory gate. It is alleged that at that time the present applicant tried to run the car over them with the intent to kill them. It is alleged that due to the act of the applicant the first informant sustained injury to her right leg.

5.

I have heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State. 6.

The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that on the day of incident workers stopped the car of the applicant and started banging on the door of the car. It is submitted that the applicant got scared and to save herself and other occupants of the car, the applicant started slowly accelerating the car. It is submitted that the intent of the applicant was to save herself and other occupants of the car and there was 2/4

no intent to kill the workers as alleged. It is submitted that the first informant has filed her affidavit before the Sessions Court that she has no objection if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation. 7.

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondentState submits that the applicant is involved in serious crime of attempt to murder. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail. 8.

I have perused the papers of investigation. Prima-facie, there appears to be substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. The first informant has already filed an affidavit before the Sessions Court that she has no objection if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail. There appears to be no need for custodial interrogation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed : 3/4

O R D E R

a) The application is allowed.

b) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 224 of 2025, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

c) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate in the investigation.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] 4/4