Allowed

Anil Badrumal Lalwani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Apr 2005APPLN/2055/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted bail to the applicant in a fraud case, dismissing the request to adjourn despite the investigating officer's failure to provide instructions to the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties in like amount, subject to specific conditions including reporting twice a week.

Anil Badrumal Lalwani Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2055 OF 2005

¶5

 Anil Badrumal Lalwani ... Applicant

¶6

 versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

 Mr.S.D. Dharmadhikari, for the Applicant.
 Mr.V.B. Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P., for the

¶9

 Respondent.

¶10

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.

¶11

 7th April 2005

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 . Heard Counsel for the parties. This

¶14

 matter has been adjourned twice on the request of
 the learned A.P.P. to seek instructions. Even

¶15

 today, the learned A.P.P. informs that the
 officer has not come to give instructions nor
 forwarded relevant papers with instructions. No
 further indulgence can be shown. The fact that

¶16

:2:

¶17

 the investigating officer has not made necessary
 arrangement to give instructions to the learned
 A.P.P. cannot be reason to keep on adjourning
 the matter repeatedly. In the circumstances,
 this Court has no option, but to proceed with the
 hearing of the application on the basis of
 material already placed on record by the
 Applicant.

¶18

 . The prosecution case seems to be that the
 Applicant, accused No. 7, who is a businesman,
 took financial assistance from accused Nos. 1
 and 2 to the extent of Rs.5,22,800/- even though
 the accused Nos.1 and 2 were only Bank employees.
 That by itself cannot be the basis to assume that
 the Applicant was involved in the act of
 committing fraud and misappropriation by accused
 Nos.1 and 2. Viewed in this perspective, the
 Applicant cannot be treated on par with accused
 Nos.1 and 2, who are principal offenders. There
 is nothing to suggest that the Applicant had
 knowledge that accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed
 fraud and misappropriation. Accordingly, this
 application ought to succeed on the following
 terms.

¶19

:3:

¶20

 (A) The Applicant is directed to be
 released on bail in connection with
 CR.No. 14/2005 registered at Kagal
 Police Station on executing personal bond
 in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two local
 sureties in the like amount.

¶21

 (B) The Applicant shall not influence the
 prosecution witnesses nor shall tamper
 with the prosecution evidence in any
 manner whatsoever.

¶22

 (C) The Applicant shall report to the
 concerned police station twice a week on
 Wednesday and Sunday between 10 a.m. to
 2 p.m. till the filing of the
 chargesheet.

¶23

 (D) The Applicant shall co-operate for
 early disposal of the trial. If the
 trial Court is of the opinion that the
 Applicant is in any manner responsible

¶24

 for the delay in disposal of the trial,
 that fact be recorded in the roznama,

¶25

:4:

¶26

 which can be a ground for cancellation of
 bail.

¶27

 . Application disposed of on the above
 terms.

¶28

 . Copy of this order be forwarded to the
 Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, in the light
 of observation made in this order in respect of
 assistance given by the investigating officer to
 the Public Prosecutor in defending the present
 application for taking necessary action in the
 matter, if so advised. It is obvious that the
 investigating officer has not honoured the recent
 instructions issued by the Home Department to
 ensure that immediate steps should be taken to
 send instructions to the Public Prosecutor on
 receipt of the intimation about the hearing of
 the bail applications.

¶29

 . Copy of the order be also forwarded to
 the Principal Secretary, Home Department, for
 information and necessary action, if so advised.

¶30

:5:

¶31

 (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

Anil Badrumal Lalwani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Badrumal Lalwani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandar Ashok Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Tukaram Redkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anju Ahuja Vs Mohan Thakurdas Chawla and Anr.

Sangameshwar Dhulappa Surgehalli Vs the Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Subhash Abasaheb Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Dondu Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra