Allowed

Sanjay Krishna Gholap v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Jul 2009APPLN/2337/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to two applicants, a proprietor and his employee, accused of theft for taking possession of a vehicle as recovery agents. The court held release was necessary as the vehicle was surrendered and custodial interrogation was not required.

What did the court decide?

Appellants to be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with sureties, abiding by conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Sanjay Krishna Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2337 OF 2009

¶3

Sanjay Krishna Gholap

¶4

Nitin Sukhdev Khandekar ........ Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent.

¶5

Mr. S.B. Shirsat adv. for the Applicant Mr. J.P. Yagnik APP. for the Respondent/State.

¶6

CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 27th July, 2009.

¶7

P. C.:

¶8

The applicant no.1 is the proprietor of Siddarth Automobiles whereas the applicant no.2 is the employee of applicant no.1. According to the applicants, Siddharth automobiles, which is a proprietary concern undertakes the work of recovery of bank loans and acts as a service provider. The applicant no.1 is acting as a recovery agent for HDFC bank. The case of the prosecution is that the borrower who had borrowed an amount from HDFC bank for purchase of vehicle, is the complainant. The present applicants are stated to have taken possession of the vehicle, hence offence of theft is registered. It is contended by the applicants that under the authority vested in them by the HDFC bank they have taken possession of the vehicle solely with a view to secure the amount of loan. It is also submitted that the vehicle in question has

¶9

been already surrendered to police and hence custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. The applicants were already granted interim bail by this court vide order dated 13-7-2009. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the clear view that the applicants need to be released by allowing the present application. In the result I pass the following order. 2. In the event of arrest of the applicants in C.R. No. 1-157/08 of Vishnu Nagar police station, Dombivli (west) under section 379 of IPC, the applicants or any of them shall be released on bail on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicants shall abide with the conditions stipulated under sec. 438(2) of Cr.P.C. Application is disposed of.

Sanjay Krishna Gholap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Krishna Gholap 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

Damodar Narayan Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Snehal Hemant Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Pundlik Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajit B. Zota and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Krishna Gholap and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandramohan Gopinath Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra