Bombay High Court
ABA/1044/2011 of IMRAN GHANCHI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 29 December 2011
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1044 OF 2011 Imran Ghanchi ...Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ----- Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. ---- CORAM: M.L.
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1044 OF 2011
Imran Ghanchi
...Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent.
-----
Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, for the Applicant.Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State.
----
CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 29, 2011.
P.C.:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Mane, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The applicant apprehends arrest in Crime No.386/2011 for the offence punishable u/ss 170, 451, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the applicant and few others had visited the house of the complainant and posed themselves to be the Police Officers. They had taken away an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on the ABA.1044-2011.sxw allegations that it was the money of Hawala transaction. The complainant and his family members were so scared that they had left their house and went to their native place for about one month. It appears that an F.I.R. was lodged after return of the complainant from his native place. During the course of investigation, it has transpired that one Police Officer and two Police Constables were part of the group who had visited the house of the complainant. The Police Officer Mr. Mane has been arrested. Police Constables have also been arrested. Name of the applicant was revealed during the course of investigation and interrogation.
3. Though the Investigating Officer is absent, I had gone through the case diary with the assistance of Mrs. Mane, learned A.P.P. It appears that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary as his name is clearly stated in the case dairy at more than one places. He appears to be the prime accused in the case. No case is made out for anticipatory bail.
4. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
(M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)
ABA.1044-2011.sxw