Home > News > Maharashtra News
Posted on Dec 05, 08:31PM | UNI
The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Mumbai-based businessman Haroon Rashid Shaikh, who has been accused of forging documents and illegally taking possession of a high-end SUV, owned by Jagbahadursingh Darshansingh Gujral.
Judge Abhay Thipsey of the High Court rejected the bail plea of Rashid.
Gujral deals with imported high-end cars and SUVs and the brokers in the business of car sales are Raju Ramkaram Mishra and Ajit Lalit Yadav.
According to Gujral, the complainant, Mishra visited him and informed that one Irfan, who owns a Land Cruiser car (NL-OD-C-1191) had purchased a Toyota car (MP-09-BA-5384).
Thereafter, a deal was done.
Gujral intended to sell the Land Cruiser and informed Mishra. The latter got in touch with his parter Ajay Yadav, who intended to show the vehicle to a prospective buyer in Sion. However, on reaching Sion, the vehicle was stolen and an FIR was lodged at the Sion police station. Crime Branch traced the vehicle and it was found in Ghatkopar Crime Branch office, bearing a new registration number, MP-14-BD-0009.
During the investigations, a Mumbai-based businessman Shaikh also made a claim for the vehicle. He claimed that he had purchased the vehicle from one Arun Mhatre for Rs 40 lakh and filed an affidavit.
Ultimately, the complainant realised that Raju Mishra, Ajay Yadav, Irfan, Mhatre and Rashid made a conspiracy and misappropriated the vehicle and filed an FIR with the Bandra police station, court documents reveal.
Yadav and Mishra were arrested, but Rashid, sought anticipatory bail and inter-alia interim protection.
His counsel claimed that he had purchased the vehicle for Rs 40 lakh.
Investigations were carried out at the Nagaland RTO, MP RTO and Tardeo RTO. It was found that the NOCs appeared to be forged. There were no documentary evidence to prove that the car has been purchased for Rs 40 lakh.
The session court, while rejecting his anticipatory bail, has observed "having regard to the facts of the case on hand and looking to the role attributed against the applicant, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant". After all, balance has to be struck between the liberty of a person and the investigation. The role attributed against the applicant needs thorough investigation including custodial interrogation, otherwise it would be difficult for the prosecution machinery to travel rest of the journey, he observed.