In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Bombay rejected the plea based on inconsistencies regarding money flow and property purchase. The court noted significant withdrawals from an escrow account that contradicted the applicant's claim of being a purchaser, thereby refusing bail.
Application for anticipatory bail was 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.
ABA 929-G-
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.929 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.517 OF 2012
Suresh Chandra Sharma .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent and
Mr. Ajay Garg .. Intervener.
Mr. Manoj Mohite a/w Mr. Madhukar Dalvi and Mr. S. B. Pawar i/by M/s S. K. Legal Associates for the Applicant
Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent - State
Mr. Parimal K. Shroff a/w Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w Mr. D.V. Deokar a/w Ms M. S. Shivani and Ms. Jyoti Sinha i/by Negandhi Shah & Himayadullah for Intervener.
CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE : 22nd October, 2012
P.C.
page 1 of 5
ABA 929-G-
applicant, it is 32,00,00,000/-. According to learned counsel for the applicant the property was to be purchased from Dr. Kirti Patel by having special purpose vehicle registered as Bandra Merchandisers Private Ltd., of which the first informant as well as two accused persons i.e. the applicant and Sushil Jain were to be the Directors. Sum of 17,05,00,000/- was deposited by the first informant with M/s Little & Company in escrow account for this transaction. The applicant claims to have paid a sum of .51,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the applicant wonders that if the property was to be purchased for 17,00,00,000/-, where was the question of further contribution from Jain and the applicant. Jain is alleged to have contributed `9,25,00,000/-
page 2 of 5
ABA 929-G-
upon since it is part of the record. The learned counsel for the parties addressed me at very great length for almost two hours, unfolding all aspects of the transactions, but I do not propose to go into all those aspects. If the applicant was one of the purchasers and claimed to have an equal shares in the property, it is not clear as to why he contributed only 51,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant sought to explain by saying that it was because of enterprises of the applicant that the purchaser was to get the property and therefore, applicant's contribution of 51,00,000/- was in fact immaterial .
3,59,00,000/-, made to the applicant's firm M/s Rukmini Builders from the Escrow account with Little & Company. There is also payment of sums 4,77,00,000/- made at the instance of the applicant from the escrow account for which co-accused Nahush Shah was responsible. Those amounts have been quoted by the learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the applicant's bail application. On the last date of hearing the applicant was requested to explain as to how he had received these amounts if he was to be the purchaser of the property alongwith first informant. The amounts were in fact to be paid vendors for purchases. No explanation is forthcoming.page 3 of 5
ABA 929-G-
9,25,00,000/- but the applicant who claimed to have contributed a mere 51,00,000/had taken out 3,59,00,000/- and 4,77,00,000/-, from the escrow account, obviously from the sums deposited by the first informant. Considering this there is no question of applicant being entitled to anticipatory bail. Application is rejected.page 4 of 5
ABA 929-G-
as also Criminal application No.517 of 2012, filed by intervener are disposed of accordingly.
page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the irregularities in financial transactions and withdrawals from escrow accounts disentitle the applicant from anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant's conduct in moving between courts defeated the purpose of the bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
not specifiedReferred¶2
Coram: R. G. Ketkar, J.
Suresh Chandra Sharma
The State of Maharashtra
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court