1
MHNS010044022022
Order below Exh.1 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1030/2022.
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438
of Cr.P.C. in C.R.No. I­221/2022 registered against applicant (1) Jameer
Amir Shaikh, (2) Shahjad Ali Liyakat Ali, (3) Faizal Sallauddin Shaikh and
(4) Shabbir Sallauddin Shaikh at Bhadrakali Police Station for the offence
punishable under sections 395, 452, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and sections 37(1)(3), 135 of the Mumbai Police Act.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that they have been
falsely implicated.

Accused had no role in snatching the cash.

Accused had lodged complaint on 01/08/2022 for offence under
section 504, 506 of IPC. However, complainant has belatedly lodged
complaint on 05/08/2022 with respect to the incident dated
01/08/2022 without mentioning the reason for delay. Complainant
and accused are related to each other. Son of co­accused and their
near relative had love affair and they ran away.

Then the
complainant and accused persons were giving understanding the
incident has occurred. Present accused has also lodged complaint at
Bhadrakali Police Station against the complainant for the offence
punishable under section 294, 354 of the IPC. There are no criminal
antecedents.

They are ready to abide by all the terms and
conditions, hence, prayed that bail be granted.

2
3.

Say was called of Investigating Officer he has objected
this application on the count that offence is serious in nature and
investigation is in progress. There is possibility that accused persons
will misappropriate the cash and property stolen from the house.
Accused persons are wanted accused and if they are released on bail
they will destroy the evidence. Even they will threaten and tamper
with the witnesses and create interference in collecting the evidence.
Hence, prayed that application be rejected.
4.

Heard Learned Advocate for the applicant and Learned
APP for the State. It is contended by the Advocate for the applicant
that there is delay on the part of the complainant to lodge the
complaint. As per the FIR itself the police personnel were present at
the spot yet there was delay on the part of the complainant in
lodging the FIR which reflects that false offence is registered. Co­
accused are already released on bail, hence, prayed that bail be
granted.
5.

On the other hand Ld. APP has objected this application
on the count that there is CCTV footage of the incident. Complaint
was lodged with the head office due to which it took time to receive.
Accused were not found at the address, hence, prayed that
application be rejected.
6.

On perusing the FIR it is categorically seen that, incident
has occurred on 01.08.2022 as accused persons had gone to the
complainant to give understanding with respect to the incident which
has occurred of eloping. CCTV footage of the incident has been
3
recorded. Detail investigation is required with respect to cash and
muddemal. Offence is serious. The contention of the Advocate for
the accused that co­accused has been released on bail cannot be
considered as the present application is anticipatory bail and the
accused released were after their arrest. Detail interrogation is
necessary. Nothing has been brought to reflect that applicant has
been falsely implicated in the crime.

All these factors reflect the
involvement of the applicant for which custody is essential. Thus,
considering the nature of allegations, prima­facie case is not made
out by applicant for grant of pre­arrest bail. Hence, I pass the
following order :­
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
Nashik.
Date : 24/08/2022.

Sd/­xxx
(V.S.Malkalpatte­Reddy)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.