Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mohammed Yaseen Ashfaq Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2018

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

       Sknair                                                  9-aba-1257-18.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


           ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1257 OF 2018


Mohammed Yaseen Ashfaq Khan                    ... Applicant
     Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                ...Respondents
                                ...
Mr. Ganesh K. Gole for the applicant.
Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Shinde, PSI Cuffe Parade Police Station is present in person.
                                ...

                                        CORAM  : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                                        DATE      :  27th AUGUST, 2018.
                             

P.C.

1.      This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with

CR No. 164 of 2017 registered with Cuffe Parade Police Station,

Mumbai for offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

2.      None appears for the Respondent No.2. In pursuant to the

order of this Court, the complainant was impleaded as Respondent

No.2.     Learned   advocate   for   the   applicant   has   filed   affidavit   of

service of notice upon the Respondent No.2.  The grievance of the

complainant is that he was in need of urgent repairs for the gas

burner   of   Faber   Company.     The   complainant   gave   a   call   to

                                                                            1 of  4
      Sknair                                                  9-aba-1257-18.odt

Justdial.     Subsequently,   applicant's   company   contacted   the

complainant   and sent   his person  to  get   the   repairs  done   at   the

request of the complainant.  It is urged that the representation was

made   to   the   complainant   that   the   applicant's   company   is

authorised   representative   of   Faber   Company   to   carry   out   said

repairs.  It is further alleged that subsequently it was noticed that

the repairs were not carried out with properly. The complainant

made inquiries with the company i.e Faber Company and it was

found   that   firm   applicant's   company   was   not   authorised

representative of the said company.

3.    Application preferred by the applicant for anticipatory bail

before the Sessions Court was rejected on 13th June, 2018.

4.    Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submitted   that   the

applicant had never made any false representatives of the Faber

Company.  The applicant's firm namely Technocare is involved to

carry out repairs of various appliance and registered with Justdial.

He   relied   upon   the   documents   relating   to   registration   with

Justdial.     It   is   submitted   that   on   receipt   of   intimation   from

Justdial, the applicant had sent his technician to the complainant

for getting the repairs done.  It is submitted that the offence under

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.  The custodial

                                                                         2 of  4
       Sknair                                                     9-aba-1257-18.odt

interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

5.     Learned   APP   submitted   that   the   applicant   has   made   false

representation   and  induced  the  complainant   to  get   the  work  of

repairs.  Firm of the applicant is not authorised by Faber Company.

On   inquiry   with   the   said   company,   it   was   revealed   that   the

applicant   is   not   authorised   agent   of   the   said   company.     The

complainant was mislead by the applicant's company.  Thereby the

case for grant of anticipatory bail is not made out.

6.     On going through the First Information Report and hearing

both the parties, it is seen that the applicant had registered his

company   namely   Technocare   with   Justdial   through   which   the

applicant   got   intimation   about   the   repairs   to   be   carried   out   in

relation to the gas burner of the complainant.  The applicant was

granted interim protection by this Court on 28th June, 2018.  The

applicant was directed to report as and when called by the police.

It is submitted that the applicant was not called by the police for

the purpose of investigation.   The applicant had forwarded letter

to   the   police   intimating   that   he   is   available   for   the   purpose   of

investigation.

7.     Taking into consideration aforesaid aspects, I find that the

custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.  Applicant

                                                                               3 of  4
                      Sknair                                                   9-aba-1257-18.odt

         shall co-operate with the investigation.

                                                    ORDER

i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1257 of 2018 is allowed;

ii) Interim order dated 28th June, 2018 is confirmed;

iii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with CR No. 164 of 2017 registered with Cuffe Parade Police Station, the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount;

iv) The applicant shall attend the investigating officer as and when called for between 11 am to 1 p.m and to join process of investigation till the filing of the chargesheet;

v) Application stands disposed off.

Digitally signed by Sachidanand ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) Sachidanand Kuttan Nair Kuttan Nair Date:

2018.08.29 14:52:41 +0530 4 of 4