Salim Mehboob Shah v. State Of Maharashtra

1 911-ABA 3081-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3081 OF 2025 Salim Mehboob Shah ... Applicant V/s.

State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ----- Mr. K. R. Tiwari for the Applicant.

Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent-State. PSI Devendra Ahire, Sakinaka PS is present.

----- CORAM :

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

11TH NOVEMBER 2025 P.C. :

1.

This is an Application for anticipatory bail. Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date:

2025.11.19 10:32:59 +0530 2.

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.947 of 2025 MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE registered at Sakinaka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(1), 333, 336(2), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The allegations against the present Applicant and other co-accused are that they forcibly evicted the tenant of the complainant from the premises owned by the complainant. It is alleged that the Applicant and other co-accused got prepared forged documents with respect to the said premises and transferred the same in favour of the co-accused Wajid Ali Jafar Ali Sayyed.

4.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2 911-ABA 3081-25.doc 5.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that co-accused Shalini Appukuttan told the Applicant to find out purchasers for the premises in question. It is submitted that with ulterior motive, false allegations are made against the Applicant. On instructions, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is not in possession of the premises in question.

6.

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the complainant is the owner of the premises in question. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence, the Applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7.

I have perused the First Information Report. The main allegations are against the co-accused Shalini Appukuttan. There appears to be no need of custodial interrogation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

i.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. ii.

In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Crime No.947 of 2025 registered at Sakinaka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(1), 333, 336(2), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

iii. The Applicant shall not commit any other crime.

3 911-ABA 3081-25.doc iv.

The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called for by the investigating officer and shall cooperate in the investigation. 8.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)