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 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sudaee Chirau Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 556

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

 Sajakali Jamadar                   1 of 3
                                                 913-ABA-620-2020-ABA-449-2020.doc




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 620 OF 2020
 Sudaee Chirau Yadav                                  ...Applicant
       Versus
 The State of Maharashtra                             ...Respondent

                              WITH
      CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 449 OF 2020

 Akbar Jamil Khan                                     ...Applicant
       Versus
 The State of Maharashtra                             ...Respondent
                                  .....
 Mr. Aniket Vagal, Advocate for the Applicant in both Anticipatory Bail
 Applications.
 Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                  .....

                               CORAM :   PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                               DATE :    16th MARCH, 2020

 PC :

 1.        The applicants in both these applications are apprehending

 arrest in connection with C.R. No. 25 of 2020 registered with D.B.

 Marg Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under Section

 384 of Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged on 7th February, 2020.


 2.        The complainant has alleged that, one person who introduced

 himself as Tejkumar Morya @ Rajesh Khabari met the complainant

 about six months ago. He stated that he is police informant. He has

 raided several places along with police. He demanded amount of Rs.

 10,000/- as protection money and Rs.5,000/- per month. On 7 th




::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 01:49:36 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar                    2 of 3
                                                    913-ABA-620-2020-ABA-449-2020.doc




 February, 2020 the complainant received call. Since the complainant

 was busy in work the complainant could not take the call. Thereafter,

 the complainant called the caller. Accused Tejkumar Morya @ Rajesh

 Khabari told the complainant to pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- and

 called the complainant at Gokuldham Hotel. The complainant gave

 information to police. Trap was arranged and the accused was

 apprehended.


 3.        The applicants had preferred applications for anticipatory bail

 before the Sessions Court which has been rejected.


 4.        Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that there is no

 involvement of the applicants in the present crime. Specific role has

 been attributed to arrested accused Tejkumar Morya @ Rajesh

 Khabari. The threats of extortion were going on since one month but

 the complainant did not make any complaint. The arrested accused

 had demanded money and told the complainant to part with the

 amount on the date of his arrest. There is no connection of the

 applicant with the said crime. The threats of extortion was attributed

 to the co-accused and not to the applicant. Hence, custodial

 interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.


 5.        Learned APP submitted that the investigation is in progress.

 Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded which




::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020                   ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 01:49:36 :::
  Sajakali Jamadar                         3 of 3
                                                       913-ABA-620-2020-ABA-449-2020.doc




 attributes specific role to the applicants. It is submitted that the

 applicants are named in the supplementary statements. Statements

 of the other witnesses to whom similar threats were issued are also

 recorded. The applicants were instrumental in making calls to

 victims. The call details collected during investigation supports

 prosecution case. There are criminal antecedents against both the

 applicants.


 6.        I have perused the FIR and the other investigation papers. The

 supplementary statement of the complainant involves the applicants.

 Role has been attributed to the applicants. The applicants are

 allegedly indulging in extortion activities. Both have criminal

 antecedents. The call data of recorded calls collected during

 investigation is incriminating against the applicants. Statement of

 witnesses shows the involvements of the applicants. Interrogation of

 the co-accused also disclosed complicity of the applicants. Hence, no

 case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.


 7.        Hence, I pass the following order :


                                           ORDER

Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 620 of 2020 & 449 of 2020 stand rejected and disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2020 01:49:36 :::