ABA-538-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2011 Mahammad Salim Shirajuddin Siddiqui ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru’ Miraj City Police Station, Dist. Sangli ... Respondent Mr. G.M. Savagave for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 23 RD JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the F.I.R., a copy of which is annexed to the Anticipatory Bail Application, and also through the annexures to the Anticipatory Bail Application. 3. The First Informant - Sabir Gulab Choudhary and his friend Taslim Patel wanted to go to Saudi Arabia for a job. Taslim Patel took the First Informant to the Applicant who is a distant cousin of the said Taslim Patel. The First Informant- Sabir and the said Taslim told the Applicant that they were ready to go to Saudi Arabia and Umrah for a job, when the Applicant asked them to bring their ABA-538-11.sxw 2 Dixit respective passports and experience certificates. When Sabir and the said Taslim went to the Applicant's house, one Inayat Golandaj, a co-accused, was sitting there. The said Inayat was also known to Sabir since previously. The passport and the documents were handed over by Sabir and the said Taslim to the said Inayat. The representation that he would do the work in connection with visa was made by the said co-accused Inayat. It was Inayat who took Sabir and Taslim to Mumbai. It was Inayat who told Sabir and Taslim that they had been selected and that, for the purposes of visa, there would be expenses of Rs.25,000/- per head. The only allegation against the present Applicant is that the amount of Rs.25,000/- each was paid by Sabir and Taslim to the Applicant. However, significantly, even thereafter, that the visa was ready was told to the said Sabir and Taslim, by Inayat only. 4. A reading of the F.I.R. makes it clear that basically the grievance of the First Informant is against Inayat. I am informed that he has been arrested. 5. Mr. Savagave, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that the First Informant and the said Taslim have, subsequently, filed affidavits stating that they had no grievance against the present Applicant. Though I am not inclined to give much importance to such affidavits, the fact remains that, on a bare reading of the F.I.R., it appears that the grievance - at any rate the main grievance - is only against the co-accused Inayat. Undoubtedly, the F.I.R. states that the amount of Rs. 50,000/-, i.e. @ Rs.25,000/- each, was paid to the present Applicant. But significantly, that the work was done was again communicated to the First Informant and the said Taslim by the said Inayat and not by the present Applicant. ABA-538-11.sxw 3 Dixit 6. In any case, the detention of the Applicant does not seem to be essential for the purpose of investigation. The Applicant is said to be an employee of the Central Government, posted at Miraj itself. 7. Under these circumstances, it appears proper to me to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant subject to certain conditions. 8. In the event of his arrest in C.R. No.64 of 2011 of Miraj City Police Station, Dist. Sangli, the Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, on the condition that the Applicant shall report to the Police Station everyday, between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and make himself available for investigation/interrogation for a period of ten days commencing from tomorrow. The Applicant shall continue to attend the Police Station, even thereafter, as and when required by the I.O. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]