This court rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving forgery and cheating. The court held that it was not a fit case to grant bail as the applicant had previously been found to be absconding after the rejection of an earlier bail application by the Sessions Court.
Application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
SNS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORTY BAIL APPLICATION NO.601 OF 2011
Mr. Madan Chavakula...Applicant.
v/s
The State and Ors. ...Respondents.
Mr. Sachin Pande ,adv. For the Applicant.
Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. R.C.Kaushik, adv. For the R.No.3.
CORAM : J.H. BHATIA,J.
DATED : AUGUST 23,2011.
P.C.
1Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in
M.E.C.R.No. 2/2007 registered at police station for
the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467,
468, 341, 420 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C.
2Offence was registered at the report lodged
by the respondent no.3 Ramashankar Yadav, who is
said to be owner of gala nos.11 and 12 in the
property known as Bramhadin compound. These two
galas or rooms were originally rented out in favour
of one M.B.Swamy. After his death, his sons, who are
the accused nos.1 and 2 in the complaint continued
that business in the said premises and were also
paying rent. It was transpired that when the
2
complainant had gone to his native place, sons of
M.B.Swamy inducted the present applicant, who is
accused no.3 as licensee. Thereafter, later on, in
the year 2003, it was revealed that the applicant in
collusion with the sons of M.B.Swamy got executed
forged document in his name and on the basis of that
he also secured loan from Veerseva Co-operative
Bank mortgaging the suit property. The said bank
started proceedings for recovery of the amount and
secured recovery certificate issued by the society
registered under the Co-operative Societies Act
under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act. As the property of the complainant is
shown to have been mortgaged by the applicant while
obtaining loan, the complainant and his property
have come in trouble and the said property has been
sealed. It appears that the applicant had previously
filed an application for anticipatory bail before
the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 2.2.2008.
According to the prosecution, even after rejection
of the anticipatory bail, he was never available and
in spite of his search at different places including
3
Silvassa where he used to carry on business earlier
as well as at Surat, he could not be traced.
Applicant is shown to be absconding in the said
criminal case. As the applicant was absconding ,
police filed A Summary, even though prima-facie case
was made out. The learned APP on instructions makes
a statement that police will re-open the case and
file charge-sheet against him as soon as applicant
is arrested, .
3Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances noted above, in my opinion, it is not
fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
4Therefore, application stands rejected.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a criminal case where the applicant was found to be absconding after the rejection of an earlier bail application by the Sessions Court.
SNS
The State and Ors.
J.H. BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court