Allowed

Arvind Rakhmaji Bhandare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jul 2014ABA/502/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants accused of cheating and forgery regarding a sale agreement. The Court treated the matter as a civil transaction involving a registered document and imposed specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail with conditions including surrendering the original agreement to police, producing other documents as requested, attending police station weekly, and not leaving India.

Arvind Rakhmaji Bhandare and Anr. Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3 ABA 502 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.502 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2014 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.502 OF 2014

¶4

Arvind Rakhmaji Bhandare

¶5

Sandip Audumbar Dhavalshankh.. Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni, for the Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State. Mr. Rahul Kate, for the intervener and for applicant in Application No.318 of 2014

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 15^th July, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This application is moved for

¶11

anticipatory bail by the applicants accused as

¶12

they are prosecuted for the offences

¶13

punishable under Sections 417, 420, 423, 467,

¶14

468, 504, read with 34 of the Indian penal

¶15

Code, registered with Baramati City Police

¶16

Page No.1 of 5

¶17

3 ABA 502 OF 2014

¶18

Station, District:Pune, under C.R. NO.114 of

¶19

It is the case of the complainant that

¶20

the complainant is owner of the land

¶21

admeasuring 60 R and it was agreed to sell the

¶22

said land for Rs.1,05,00,000/- to the

¶23

applicants accused by registered agreement of sale dated 16.12.2013. It is the case of the

¶24

complainant that an amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/-

¶25

was subsequently changed to 11,05,000/- and thus the applicants have cheated the

¶26

complainant.

¶27

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶28

accused has submitted that agreed amount is mentioned in the registered sale deed. There

¶29

was no scope of any such manipulation or

¶30

alteration in the figure of the consideration amount.

¶31

The learned APP and the learned

¶32

counsel for the intervener have opposed the application. The learned counsel for the

¶33

intervener has submitted that the price of the

¶34

Page No.2 of 5

¶35

3 ABA 502 OF 2014

¶36

land was fixed at Rs.1,05,00,000/- and this

¶37

can be proved as the applicants accused have

¶38

agreed to sell 40 R (one acre) land out of same land for Rs.90,00,000/- to third party.

¶39

Thus, the actual price of the 60 R can be

¶40

inferred from the transaction which the applicants agreed to sell to third parties. The learned APP submits that the original

¶41

agreement of sale deed is required to the police for ascertaining the forgery.

¶42

Perused agreement of sale. It is

¶43

registered document. The applicants have filed a suit for specific performance against the complainant. Thus, this being civil transaction, I grant pre-arrest bail to

¶44

applicants on the following grounds :-

¶45

Order

¶46

i) In the event of applicants’ arrest in above crime, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000/- by each of them with one or two sureties in the

¶47

Page No.3 of 5

¶48

3 ABA 502 OF 2014

¶49

sum aggregating to Rs.15,000/- by each of them/-.

¶50

ii) The applicants shall hand over the original agreement to the police for the purpose of verification. The police on verification return the same to applicants. The applicants shall produce the other original documents as and when required by the police for the purpose of verification.

¶51

iii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet.

¶52

iv) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶53

v) The applicant 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;

¶54

v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission

Page No.4 of 5

3 ABA 502 OF 2014

of the trial Court.

This application for bail as also application filed by intervener, both are disposed of accordingly.

¶59

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶60

Page No.5 of 5

Arvind Rakhmaji Bhandare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Rakhmaji Bhandare and Anr. 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

Abhijit Chandrakant Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aarti Abhijit Choudhari (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kapil Vitthal Kalebere Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Bhairavnath Khupase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sarojani Shirshail Nandure and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ali Sayyed Amir Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra