Allowed

Ramesh Govind Chindarkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Sept 2013BA/1552/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Criminal Bail Application for an accused arrested under chequeshop and forgery offences. The Court ruled the applicant should be released on bail upon execution of personal bond with conditions regarding police attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in sum of ₹50,000 with one or two solvent sureties on conditions of weekly police attendance and no interference with witnesses.

Ramesh Govind Chindarkar Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

BA 1552 OF 2013

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1552 OF 2013.

¶4

Ramesh Govind Chandarkar .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶5

Mr. S. V. Marwadi, i/by Mr. Sandeep Dere, for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : U.V.BAKRE, J.

¶8

DATE : 24th September, 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the

¶11

applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶12

The applicant, who has been arrested on 24.7.2013, in Crime No.130 of 2013, registered with Kalachowky Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed present

¶13

page 1 of 5

¶14

BA 1552 OF 2013

¶15

application for bail.

¶16

applicant had informed the husband of the first informant that Shri Atul Potnis is known

¶17

to him and he is builder by profession, who is

¶18

going to construct new building and would sell flats at the rate of `5,500/- per square feet.

¶19

The husband of the first informant was allegedly told by the present applicant that an amount of `12,50,000/-will have to be paid as advance booking towards flat to said Atul

¶20

Potnis. Accordingly the first informant had

¶21

contacted Atul Potnis and it is the case of the first informant that a total amount of `4,90,000/- has been paid by crossed cheque in the name of Tejaswini Group. The cheque was handed over to the present applicant, who gave

¶22

receipt in the signature of Atul Potnis. Subsequently agreement for sale of the flat

¶23

was executed and registered in respect of some purchasers, though not in respect of the first

¶24

page 2 of 5

¶25

BA 1552 OF 2013

¶26

informant. The first informant and her husband started inquiring about the agreement with them and thereafter demanded the money back, but after some time said Atul Potnis refused to pay back the said amount and further also did not hand over the flat. Therefore, a report came to be filed.

¶27

It is seen that the main accused

¶28

namely Atul Potnis is on ad-interim anticipatory bail in terms of order dated 14^th August, 2013, passed by Sessions Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.258 of 2013. In Criminal Application No.946 of 2013, filed before this Court, he has agreed to deposit an

¶29

amount of `59,00,000/- towards his share

¶30

stating that there are other four Directors of the said group. Accordingly it is reported

¶31

that he has deposited an amount of `15,00,000/- on or before 3.9.2013 as per

¶32

condition laid down in the order dated 29.8.2013, passed by this Court in the said

¶33

page 3 of 5

¶34

BA 1552 OF 2013

¶35

Criminal Application No.946 of 2013.

¶36

Nothing has been recovered from the

¶37

present applicant or even from main accused. Offences appear to be relating to documents. Though the amount of fraud is stated to be

¶38

`1,63,60,000/-, however since the present applicant is now in judicial lock-up, question of any recovery does not arise. According to

¶39

learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is mere employee of the main accused. However, the learned APP submits that he is broker and has received money from several persons who have booked flats. Since present applicant was arrested on 24.7.2013 and considerable time has passed; in my considered view, looking to the nature of the offences, qua the present applicant, he should now be released on bail on certain conditions.

¶40

The application, is therefore, allowed.

¶41

The applicant shall be released on

¶42

bail in Crime No.130 of 2013, upon execution

¶43

page 4 of 5

¶44

BA 1552 OF 2013

¶45

of Personal Bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount on the following conditions :-

¶46

I) The applicant shall attend Kala Chowky Police Station twice a week i.e. on every Monday and Friday between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., till filing of the chargesheet.

¶47

II) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

Application stands disposed of

¶49

accordingly.

¶50

page 5 of 5

Ramesh Govind Chindarkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Govind Chindarkar 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

Arjun Ramdas Jadhav Vs Satish Hari Kulkarni and Anr.

Alexander Nelson D'Souza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kumar @ Natrajan Adi Uddiyar Vs State of Maharashtra

Govind Magar Yadav @ Rahul Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Rajaram Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Ramkishor Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra