Allowed

Dattatrya Shankarrao Dandgal and Anr. v. St Ate of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Jan 2012ABA/42/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for anticipatory bail regarding allegations of cheating under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, the court allowed bail after the applicants undertook to deposit the disputed amount with interest. The order stipulates conditions including reporting to police and not leaving the country.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants released on bail if arrested, conditioned upon depositing Rs.5,00,000 with interest and complying with reporting restrictions.

Dattatrya Shankarrao Dandgal and Anr. Vs St Ate of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1ABA 42-12.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2012 (For Anticipatory Bail)

¶5

1.Dattatraya Shankarrao Dandgal.Applicants

¶6

2.Anil Sidram Shriram

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.Respondent

¶9

Mr.V.V.Purwant, Advocate, for the Applicants
Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP, for the Respondent -
State

¶10

Mr.I.M.Khairdi, Advocate, for the Complainant

¶11

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:13TH JANUARY, 2012

¶12

P.C.

¶13

.Heard the learned counsel for the

¶14

respective parties.

¶15

2.This is an application for anticipatory

¶16

bail by builders, who apprehend arrest in

¶17

connection with C.R.No.238 of 2011 for the

¶18

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Solapur

¶19

2ABA 42-12.odt

¶20

and who are supposed to have accepted a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards a Row House when no such
Row House existed and offered instead to provide

¶21

a flat in the scheme. The learned counsel for
the applicants states that the applicants are
ready to deposit the entire amount received from
the respondent with interest @ 10% p.a. from the
date of receipt till the date of deposit in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate F. C., Solapur
within a period of two weeks. In view of this,
though the learned APP and the learned counsel
for the first informant have a very strong
objection to the applicants' being admitted to
anticipatory bail, no useful purpose would be
served in subjecting the applicants to custodial
interrogation. Application is allowed. In the
event of their arrest, applicants be released on
bail on their furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.25,000/-
each with one or more solvent sureties in the

¶22

aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/- on the condition
that the applicant shall deposit with the

¶23

3ABA 42-12.odt

¶24

learned Judicial Magistrate F. C., Solapur a sum
of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 10 p.a. from
3rd February, 2011 till the amount is deposited
by 27th January, 2012. The learned Magistrate
shall either invest it any Nationalized Bank in
an interest earning deposit or deal with himself
at the end of trial or remand it to such Civil
Court or Consumer Forum where parties may be
raising dispute. Should Civil Court requisition
the amount from him. The order shall stand
revoked, if the amount is not deposited by 27th
January, 2012 on the following conditions.

¶25

(i)The applicants shall report at the
M.I.D.C. Police Station, Solapur on 20th
January, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter, as &
when required by the investigating officer. The
applicant shall deposit with the learned
Judicial Magistrate F. C., Solapur a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- with interest @ 10 p.a. from 3rd
February, 2011 till the amount is deposited by
27th January, 2012. The learned Magistrate
shall invest the said amount in interest earning
deposit in a Nationalized Bank and deal with it
at the end of the trial as per the result of the
trial and/or shall either deal with himself at
the end of trial or remand it to such Civil
Court or Consumer Forum where parties may be
raising dispute. Should Civil Court requisition
the amount from him. The order shall stand

¶26

ABA 42-12.odt

¶27

¶28

revoked, if the amount is not deposited by 27th
January, 2012.

¶29

(ii)The applicants shall make themselves
available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required.

¶30

(iii)The applicants shall not, directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.

¶31

(iv)The applicants shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the trial
Court.

¶32

.The order will remain in force till the

¶33

trial is over with the only stipulation that if
charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh

¶34

bonds before the trial Court in view of the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2011 (SC)

¶35

312(Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of

¶36

Maharashtra And Ors.).

¶37

3.Criminal Application is disposed of.

¶38

5ABA 42-12.odt

Dattatrya Shankarrao Dandgal and Anr. v. St Ate of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatrya Shankarrao Dandgal and Anr. v. St Ate of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajaram Yashwant Mane Vs Prakash H. Patil and Ors.

Abhijit Mahavir Mahajan Vs Rajesh Prakash Kashikar and Anr.

Rajaram Yashwant Mane Vs Prakash H. Patil and Ors.

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadanand Baburao Shelake and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadanand Baburao Shelake and Ors.