Allowed

Mayur Pravin Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2006APPLN/2526/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Bombay granted bail to the applicant accused of offences under the IPC including cheating and forgery. The court imposed stringent conditions including a personal bond, regular appearance, surrender of passports and business documents, and strict surveillance conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties and submission to stringent conditions regarding appearance, document surrender, and prohibition on

Mayur Pravin Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

[1]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLAGTE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2526 OF 2006.

¶4

 Shri Mayur Pravin Mehta ... Applicant
 V/s
 The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

¶5

 Shri A.H.H. Ponda for the applicant.
 Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State.

¶6

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 21ST AUGUST, 2006.

¶7

 P.C.

¶8

 . Heard Mr. Ponda appearing for the applicant and
 Mrs. Deshmukh appearing for respondent.

¶9

 2. The applicant has been arrested on 25th May,
 2006 in connection with CR.No. 17/2006 registered at
 Yellow Gate Police Station, Mumbai for the offences
 punishable under Sections 465, 467,468, 471, 420 r/w
 section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶10

 3. The allegation is that one consignment was
 imported from china by one Raju Doshi. The applicant
 purported to represent as his clearing and forwarding
 agent. He allowed said Raju Doshi to obtain clearance
 of the goods without furnishing bank guarantee, original
 bill of lading but by producing xerox copies of the

¶11

[2]

¶12

 relevant documents.

¶13

 4. The complainant has therefore, charged said Raju
 Doshi and the applicant for acting in collusion and upon
 the strength of forged and fabricated and so also bogus
 documents obtain clearance of the goods which were
 imported from China. The original bill of lading is
 supposed to be handed over by the complainant-company.
 The consignment was supplied from abroad and the owner
 was to get goods after their release by the complainant
 company upon production of original documents. However,
 the importer acting in collusion with the applicant and
 on the strength of the xerox copies of the relevant
 documents obtained the delivery of goods and
 appropriated the goods.

¶14

 5. It is contended by Shri Ponda that the applicant
 has been in custody for past more than 2 months. He has
 been interrogated fully. The relevant documents have
 been seized with the help of the complainant and the
 other parties.

¶15

 6. It is his case therefore, that the applicant be
 enlarged on bail, more so when he is a young man aged 27

¶16

[3]

¶17

 years having firm roots in the society without any
 criminal antecedents.

¶18

 7. On the other hand, the learned APP, Mrs.
 Deshmukh submits that further investigation is going on
 and the chargesheet would be filed expeditiously. She
 submits that as far as the applicant is concerned,
 unless he is interrogated in custody the other material
 cannot be traced. Similarly the charge is serious in as
 much as the applicant has without any licence
 represented himself to be a clearing and forwarding
 agent, manipulated and forged documents and obtained
 delivery. He does not deserves to be enlarged on bail,
 as the offences are serious and grave in nature.

¶19

 8. Having perused the annexures to the application,
 including the statements of the complainant and
 considering the fact that the applicant had applied for
 bail before the trial Court but the application was
 dismissed on two occasions and further considering the
 role of the applicant being only taking documents (zerox
 copies) and obtaining delivery so also there being no
 antecedents, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on
 bail with stringent conditions. Hence the following

¶20

[4]

¶21

 order-

¶22

 i) The applicant arrested in connection with CR.No.
 17/2006 registered with Yellow Gage Police Station,
 Mumbai shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a
 personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two local
 sureties in the like amount.

¶23

 ii) The bail is granted subject to condition that
 the applicant will remain present before the concerned
 investigating officer twice in a week initially for a
 period of two months and subsequently before the trial
 Court till the conclusion of the trial.

¶24

 iii) The applicant shall surrender his pass port to
 the trial Court.

¶25

 iii) The applicant shall also surrender all relevant
 and necessary documents including licence, if any
 pertaining to the clearing and forwarding business.

¶26

 iv) The order of bail will be given effect only
 after the applicant furnishes to the investigating
 officer the details about his place of residence and

¶27

[5]

¶28

 address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged
 on bail. The applicant also to furnish the details of
 office premises and bank account. The applicant will
 not change his residential address thereafter till the
 conclusion of the trial without prior intimation to the
 Investigating officer.

¶29

 v) The bail is granted subject to condition that
 the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any
 inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and
 shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution
 evidence.

¶30

 vi) The applicant shall cooperate with the learned
 Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the case. Any
 attempt by the applicant to delay the trial may be a
 ground for cancellation of bail.

¶31

 vii) Any observation made in this order shall not be
 construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on
 the merits of the case at the time of trial.

¶32

 viii) Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶33

[6]

¶34

 ix) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this

¶35

 order.

¶36

( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Mayur Pravin Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Pravin Mehta 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

Shekhar Suresh Charegaonkar Vs Sushma Sadashiv Gadagil and Ors.

Sanjay Baburao Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Suresh Jhunjhunwala and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravikant Harishchandra Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Ramchandra Nage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tahir Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra