Anjali Awasthi

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.703 OF 2014 Sheikh Mahmud Aalam ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms.Anjali Awasthi for the Applicant Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa APP, for Respondent – State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JUNE 10, 2014 P.C.: The application is moved for transit anticipatory bail as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as the offence is registered at C.R. No.2 of 2014. The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is not aware of the prosecution as he is a permanent resident of Mumbai. When the proceedings have been initiated under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the concerned Court, his father came to know about the involvement of the accused in the said crime and, therefore, he was informed accordingly. The Learned Counsel has submitted that if the applicant/accused is protected temporarily for eight days, he would go before the appropriate Court and obtain anticipatory bail. He submitted that the applicant/accused is falsely implicated. Learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He has pointed out that the FIR is registered on 3.1.2014 at Shahganj police station, District Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh. The name of the applicant/accused is appearing in the FIR. He submitted that it is a case of murder and hence, no anticipatory bail should be granted. In view of the submissions of the learned Counsel and the complaint, I am not inclined to grant transit anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused to take proper recourse before the appropriate forum. Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected accordingly. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)