IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Tayyab Haider Siddique - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 919 of 2024, Interim Application No. 3414 of 2024, Interim Application No. 1504 of 2024
Decided On : 09-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of anticipatory bail and allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments by both parties regarding allegations made. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court’s observations on evidence and legal interpretations. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's final decision on anticipatory bail application. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
1. Application for anticipatory bail is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, " Cr.P.C ."). Applicant is apprehending arrest being arraigned as Accused No. 1 in F.I.R. No. 553 of 2022 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Thane for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468, 479 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short " IPC "). Interim Application No.3414 of 2024 is filed by Applicant seeking permission of Court to travel abroad for work. Interim Application No.1504 of 2024 is filed by First Informant – Complainant to oppose Anticipatory Bail Application.
2. FIR is filed on 27.09.2022. Applicant, First Informant and their common friend called Vinod Shukla are Merchant Navy Sailors. It is prosecution case that Applicant introduced First - Informant and Vinod Shukla to Accused No. 2 – a land broker. Sometime in the year 2017, Accused No.2 introduced all three of them to a 2.5 acres land parcel in Murbad region of Maharashtra for investment purpose. First - Informant, Vinod Shukla initially decided to purchase 1 acre each and remaining portion was decided to be purchased by Applicant. However in July 2017 First Informant's wife, Vinod Shukla and Applicant executed various documents seeking mutation of their names in the 7/12 extract for the land purchased by them from several farmers / vendors through several registered Sale Deeds. It is alleged that on 10.07.2017 First - Informant paid 1.5 lakhs to one land owner by cheque and $20,000 equivalent to Rs. 12,90,000/- in cash to Applicant to fructify the said land transaction towards consideration.
3. In August 2017, Applicant and Accused No.2 introduced First - Informant and Vinod Shukla to a 2.5 acres land parcel in Karjat region of Maharashtra for which documents were executed in the name of First - Informant's wife, Vinod Shukla and Applicant. It is alleged that on 01.09.2017, First - Informant paid Rs. 2 lakhs to one of the land owner by cheque and $20,000 equivalent to Rs. 12,90,000/- in cash to Applicant to fructify the said land transaction towards consideration.
4. On 19.09.2017, all 3 friends decided to establish a company for training Merchant Navy personnel. They came together and formed a company called VTA Shipping Pvt. Ltd. It is prosecution case that Applicant persuaded them to invest for a third time by purchasing 18 acres of land parcel in Kalamb region of Maharashtra for the purpose of setting up a Training Institute for which sale documents were executed in the name of First - Informant, Vinod Shukla and Applicant's wife. It is prosecution case that once again First - Informant paid Rs. 25 lakhs by cheque to Accused No.2 and $10,000 equivalent to Rs.6,45,000/- in cash to Applicant to fructify the land transactions with various vendors. Thus they all invested in purchasing three land parcels. However later Applicant expressed his wish to not continue as Director in the Company and he resigned in the year 2018.
5. It is prosecution allegation that Applicant was one of the beneficiary / recipient under the aforesaid land transactions. It is alleged that Accused No.2 - broker prepared and facilitated the entire documentation process of all three land transactions with different / several vendors / farmers. It is stated that thereafter First Informant resigned as Director from the said Company and withdrew himself but his place was taken over by Vinod Shukla and his wife who thereafter continued to be Directors of VTA Shipping Pvt. Ltd. According to prosecution Accused No.2 prepared the entire documentation
Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Ryan Augustine Pino
Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India
The prosecution's claims of fraud lacked sufficient evidence, indicating a civil dispute merely presented as a criminal case.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted if it hampers investigation, especially in cases involving economic offences.
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations of fraud, necessity for custodial interrogation, and applicants' absconding status.
Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases; the court must balance individual rights with societal interests, especially in serious economic offences.
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence and the requirement for custodial interrogation in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.