Allowed

Prakash Mohanlal Gawali @ Ahir and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Jan 2014ABA/2/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appellate court application addressed apprehended arrest in a property dispute involving cheating and forgery. The single-judge vacation court observed that the dispute appeared civil and granted anticipatory bail subject to PR bonds, surety, and conditions prohibiting witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to PR bond of Rs. 50,000 each, one solvent surety each, and conditions to report, not tamper with witnesses, and impede investigation.

Prakash Mohanlal Gawali @ Ahir and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

aba2-14.doc

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2014

¶5

Prakash Mohanlal Gawali @ Ahir & Others....Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra....Respondent
____________

¶6

Mr. V.V. Purwant, for the Applicants.
Mrs. A.A. Mani, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM: G. S. PATEL, J. Vacation Court.

¶8

DATED : JANUARY 3, 2014.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with C.R.

¶11

No.I-214 of 2013 registered with the Rabodi Police Station, Thane for
the offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.

¶12

2.The dispute pertains to an immovable property. It seems
that the applicants and their family members had first entered into a
development agreement in respect of of this immovable property with
the complainant. That was as far back as on 12th April 1996. The
applicants and their family members later canceled the development
agreement and published a notice to that effect in a local newspaper on

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

aba2-14.doc

¶15

Shephali

¶16

1st June 2005. This was followed by written notices in 2007 and 2008.

¶17

3.Sometime in 2013 the applicants, or some of them, executed
another development agreement with third parties and accepted advance
payment from these third parties on 20th September 2013. The
complainant arrived at the site and found the board of the rival
developer. This led to the filing of C.R. No.I-214 of 2013.

¶18

4.In my view, this is not a matter in which the reliefs sought in
the present application should be refused. Prima-facie, the disputes
seems to be entirely of a civil nature.

¶19

5.Hence the following order. In the event of the applicants or
any of them being arrested in connection with C.R. No.I-214 of 2013,
registered with the Rabodi Police Station, Thane, they shall be released
upon their furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and
one solvent surety each in the like amount. This shall be subject to the

¶20

usual conditions, namely:

¶21

(i) The Applicants shall report to the police station concerned as and when required.

¶22

(ii)The bail is granted subject to condition that the
applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

aba2-14.doc

¶25

Shephali

¶26

shall not in any manner tamper with prosecution
evidence, and also shall not in any way impede the
investigation.

¶27

(iii) Any observation/s made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of Trial.

¶28

(iv) It is made clear that any violation or breach of the conditions which are imposed shall entail in cancellation of bail.

¶29

(v) The Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed off in the above terms.

¶30

(vi) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶32

3 of 3

Prakash Mohanlal Gawali @ Ahir and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Mohanlal Gawali @ Ahir 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

Chadrakant Madhukar Chaudhary Vs Milind Hemraj Hingonekar and Anr.

Chandrakant Madhukar Chaudhary Vs Milind Hemraj Hingonekar and Anr.

Chandrakant Madhukar Chaudhary Vs Milind Hingonekar and Anr.

Jagdish Prsad Gupta S/O Sahdev Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daelim Corporation Vs Mv "Med Bridge", and Others

Charivupurayidathil M. Thomas and Anr. Vs Alice Thomas Nee Alice Gheevarghese