Bombay High Court
HUMERA KASHIF ANSARI EX W/O MOHAMMED KASHIF ANSARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because the applicant was not named in the FIR, had returned the transferred amount, and custodial interrogation was not justified.
Summary
The applicant, Humera Kashif Ansari, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered as Crime No. 05 of 2024 involving alleged fraud under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. She argued that she was not named in the FIR, that the Rs. 47,000 transferred to her account was returned, and that she had no criminal antecedents. The State contended that she was the wife of the main accused and a beneficiary of the transaction, urging denial of bail. The Court examined the FIR, noted the applicant’s lack of formal accusation and the return of the money, and held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including a personal bond, surety, and restrictions on contacting the complainant or witnesses. The application was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person not named in the FIR but alleged to be a beneficiary of the alleged fraud
- Whether custodial interrogation is warranted given the nature of the offence and the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents
- Whether conditions can be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC Section 419
- IPC Section 420
- custodial interrogation
- bail conditions
- beneficiary
- FIR
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
917-ABA-2670-2026.odt
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2670 OF 2026
Humera Kashif Ansari Ex
W/O Mohammed Kashif Ansari ...Applicant
V/S.
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
Adv. Kaushalya Patil a/w Siddharth Pawar, Abhishek Kasar, for the
Applicant.
Adv. Bapu V. Holambe, APP for the Respondent – State.
API - Mr. Saurabh S. Pingale, Yellow Gate Police Station is present.
_________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP for
the Respondent-State.
2. The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime
No. 05 of 2024 dated 23.01.2024, registered with Yellow Gate Police
Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this applicant is not
named in the FIR. The allegations of inducement to pay money for
providing employment are against the main accused persons. She submits
that an amount of Rs. 47,000/- was transferred to her account by the
1/3
917-ABA-2670-2026.odt
complainant, however, the said amount was returned by the applicant to the
complainant. She also states that the main accused was arrested and released
on bail and this applicant is ready to extend cooperation. She also states that
there are no criminal antecedents against this applicant and considering the
nature of offence, her custodial interrogation is not warranted.
4. The application is opposed by learned APP by pointing out that
the main accused person is the husband of this applicant. He submits that
this applicant is a beneficiary of the transactions since an amount of Rs.
47,000/- was transferred to her account. He submits that several persons
have been induced by the main accused on false promise of giving
employment and considering the nature of offence, the application be
rejected.
5. On perusal of the FIR and the documents placed on record, it is
clear that this applicant is not named in the FIR. Although, it is tried to be
pointed out by the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 47,000/- was
transferred in the account of this applicant and therefore she is a beneficiary
of the transactions, it has to be noted that the amount stands returned by this
applicant. It has to be noted that the main accused person was already
arrested and released on bail. There is nothing to be recovered from this
applicant. Thus, considering the nature of offence the custodial interrogation
of this applicant is not warranted and her presence can be secured by
directing her to attend the Police Station.
6. Considering all the above aspects and nature of offence, the
personal liberty of this applicant needs to be protected, subject to certain
conditions.
2/3
917-ABA-2670-2026.odt
7. Hence, I pass the following order :
: ORDER :
i] Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
ii] In the event of arrest of this applicant in Crime
No. 05 of 2024 registered with Yellow Gate Police
Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under
Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC),
1860, she be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount.
iii] The applicant is directed to attend the police
station as and when called upon by the investigating
agency.
iv] The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
contact the complainant or any prosecution witnesses.
v] The applicant shall extend cooperation during
investigation and trial.
8. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
3/3
Checking your session…