Nilesh Radheshyam Lahoti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4730 OF 2009

¶5

1. Nilesh Radheshyam Lahoti

¶6

2. Mahesh Narendra Kate

¶7

3. Manish Rammurthy Pandey

¶8

4. Mayur Narayan Darji ....Applicants
Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

....Respondent

¶11

Mr.H.H. Ponda i/b. R.A. Shaikh for Applicant No.1
Mr. S. Dasgupta for Applicant No.2
Mr. A.H.N. Ponda for Applicant Nos.3 and 4
Mr.S.A. Shaikh - APP for State
Mr.Satish Mishra for Intervenor

¶12

CORAM: V.M. KANADE J.
DATED: 5TH DECEMBER, 2009

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Applicants, learned Counsel for the Complainant
and the learned APP for the State.

¶15

2.The Applicants have been arrested in connection
with an offence which is registered by the Borivali

¶16

1

¶17

Police Station for the offence punishable under
sections 365, 447, 486, 395, 323, 324, 506 (Part-II),
120(b) of the Indian Penal Code r/w. sections 37, 135
of the Bombay Police Act with Section 25 of the Arms
Act.

¶18

3.The Applicant No.1 who is Accused No.1 was
arrested on 17.9.2009. The Applicant No.2 who is
accused No.2 was arrested on 18.9.2009. The Applicant
No.3 who is Accused No.3 was arrested on 19.9.2009 and
the Applicant No.4 who is Accused No.4 was arrested on
23.9.2007.

¶19

4.According to the Complainant, he knew one Manish
Pandey since he had studied with him in Chetana
College while he was pursuing his M.B.A. Degree and
after completing his M.B.A. Course, Manish Pandey
started his share broking business and the Complainant
was purchasing shares through him. According to the
Complainant, the said Manish Pandey i.e. Applicant
No.3 herein suggested that they would start share
broking business in partnership. He gave his consent
and they started the said business from January, 2009
in the name of Techno Shares and Stock Brokers. There
was no written agreement of partnership between the
two and according to him in February, 2009, the
Applicant No.1 Nilesh Lahoti also joined their firm as

¶20

1

¶21

a partner. According to the Complainant, apart from
doing business with Manish Pandey and Nilesh Lahoti,
he was also having his own separate sales/purchase
share accounts and he was also doing his business on
his own.

¶22

5.According to the Complainant, some time in March,
2009 he purchased some shares and earned profit of
Rs.2,00,000/-. According to him, the Applicant No.1
Nilesh Lahoti wanted a share in the said amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- and there used to be frequent altercations
between two friends. The Complainant, however, did
not give his share and due to the dispute between the
partners, the Complainant left partnership firm and
went to his native place. According to the

¶23

Complainant, he was threatened by the Applicant No.1
on his mobile phone and he decided to come to Mumbai
and finish the transaction. Thereafter, they agreed
that they would meet at Delhi and he had taken his
cheque book of H.D.F.C. Bank, blank instruction slip
of his Demat Account of Indian Inflowline Company,
S.T.M. Cards and came to Delhi on 19.5.2009. The

¶24

other accused met him outside the New Delhi Railway
Station. From there, he was taken to hotel at
Pahadganj and, thereafter, he was forcibly taken by
them to Mumbai. Dipesh Kamble had shown a revolver

¶25

to him and Rohesh Hegde had shown him a knife and he
was, thereafter, brought to Bombay and they got down

¶26

1

¶27

at Borivali Railway Station and he was taken to the
apartment of the Applicant No.1 at Borivali and there,
he was asked to give a cheque of Rs.8,33,000/- in the
name of Mahesh Narendra Kate. He was detained in that
hotel room and his gold bracelet of 42 grams, gold
chain of 30 grams and gold ring of 26 grams were
forcibly removed on 22.5.2009. He was forcibly asked
to sign on the sale agreement of his flat, which was
registered with Sub-Registrar, Mira Road. According
to him, he was, thereafter brought near Sumernagar
flyover bridge at Borivali (West) and Nilesh went to
the Branch of H.D.F.C. Bank to ensure that an amount
of Rs.2,14,000/- was credited to his account from the
Complainant's account in H.D.F.C. Bank. On 21.5.2009,
he was brought to Majestic Hotel and on 23.5.2009
when they left the Complainant on the Highway outside
of Santacruz Airport, he went to his native place via
Delhi.

¶28

6.According to the Complainant, he filed his
complaint with Pahelganj Police Station on 25.5.2009.
Since no action was initiated by the police, he sent
the copy of the application to Borivali Police Station
by registered post. He also submitted his complaint
to the Hon'ble Home Minister, Maharashtra State. The
legal notice dated 26.5.2009 was sent him through his
advocate. However, the facts mentioned hereinabove

¶29

1

¶30

were not mentioned in the said legal notice. In the
said legal notice, it was alleged that on 19.5.2009
the accused had kidnapped him and had kept him in
Mumbai in several places and certain sale documents
were executed by him on account of threats given by
the accused and signatures were taken on the documents
without any consideration and at the point of gun.

¶31

7.A reply was given by the Applicant No.1 through
his advocate by his advocate's notice dated 5.6.2009
wherein all these facts were denied and it was
contended that in the year 2009, the Applicant no.1
had opened on account in the Complainant's name and
shares of Twin Star Soft Company were transferred in
the Demat Account of the Complainant and dates and
number of shares were also mentioned and, therefore,
it was alleged that the Complainant has
misappropriated Rs.63,00,000/- and cheated to the
Applicant No.1 and that the Complainant had agreed to
repay the said amount by transferring his flat and by
issuing two cheques for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
and Rs.50,00,000/- and, accordingly, the Complainant

¶32

had willingly executed the said document. The
cheques, however, which were deposited by the
Applicant No.1, were dishonoured. Thereafter, on
17th September, 2009, a complaint was filed by the
Complainant in Borivali Police Station vide C.R. No.

¶33

1

¶34

341 of 2009 in which several new allegations were
made, which are mentioned hereinabove. Thereafter,
the Applicants were arrested.

¶35

8.The learned Counsel for the Applicant No.1
submitted that the entire case of the Complainant is
false, fabricated and bogus and has been filed as an
after-thought. The learned Counsel for the Applicant
has invited my attention to the statement of
transactions, the share transfer account of the
Applicant No.1, the cheques which were issued by the
Complainant for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.
5,00,000/- which were deposited and were dishonoured
by bank memo dated 29.4.2009 and also the summary of
the transactions of the Complainant's account dated
29.4.2009 which indicates that the said cheques have
been returned. He also showed me the extract of the
share account of the Complainant which shows that
8,61,000 shares were deposited in his account by the
Applicant No.1. The learned Counsel for the Applicant
has also invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the
copy of the agreement of sale in which it was
mentioned that the Transferor should hand over vacant
and peaceful possession of the flat along with
relevant documents. He, therefore, submitted that as
alleged by the Complainant, the possession was not
handed over. He, therefore, submitted that the entire

¶36

1

¶37

story which was alleged by the Complainant was false
and bogus.

¶38

9.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Applicant Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the only role
which was attributed to the Applicant No.3 was that he
had introduced the Complainant to the Applicant No.1
and role attributed to the Applicant No.4 was that he
was the recipient of certain shares out of a business
transaction and the said accounts were frozen by the
police. The role attributed to the Applicant No.2
is also similar to the role attributed to the
Applicant No.1.

¶39

10.Having heard the learned Counsel for the
Applicants, Complainant and the Learned APP for the
State at length, in my view, prima facie case has been
made out by the Applicants for grant of bail. It is
an admitted position that even according to the
Complainant, he was a partner of the Applicant No.1
and Applicant No.3 and the cheques which were issued
by the Complainant and deposited by the Applicant No.1
for an amount of Rs.5,00,000 and Rs.50,00,000/- were
dishonoured and the said incident took place prior to
the alleged date of kidnapping. The agreement for

¶40

sale was also registered in the presence of Sub-
Registrar,Thane. the share account also indicates

¶41

1

¶42

that he had deposited 2,20,000 shares in respect of
Twin Star Soft Company and also 1,00,000 shares on
4.3.2009 and on 17.3.2009. All these documents,
therefore, clearly indicate that the said allegations
which are now made out by the Complainant do not
appear to be true. It appears that the Complainant
was to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.
50,00,000/- to the Applicant No.1 and he had not
received the said amount. Under these circumstances,
it is difficult to conceive that the Applicant No.1
would seek share in the share transaction of Rs.
2,00,000/- which according to the Complainant was the
profit earned by him in his own transaction. The
Sessions Court also has observed after going through
the material on record that it is difficult to state
as to who had cheated whom and, thereafter,
surprisingly rejected the application for bail. In any
case, the Applicants are in jail since September,
2009. They were remanded to the police custody and,
thereafter, they have been transferred to the judicial
custody. Further detention of the Applicants, in my
view, is not necessary. The Applicants, therefore,
deserve to be released on bail.

¶43

11.The Applicants shall be released on bail in C.R.
No. 341 of 2009 registered with Charkop Police Station
in a sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties

¶44

1

¶45

each in the like amount. They shall report to the
concerned police station once in a month. They shall
not threaten the Complainant or any of the witnesses.

¶46

12.The Trial Court shall not be influenced in any
manner by the observations made by this Court while
deciding the case since these observations are
essentially prima facie in nature.

¶47

13.Application is disposed of.

Nilesh Radheshyam Lahoti and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Radheshyam Lahoti and Ors. 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

Sanjay Balappa Tahsildar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raghvendra @ Nagendra Hanumanta Naikvi @ Vira Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Vasantrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pandharinath Hiraman Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saifan Sayyed Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shabbir Chand Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra