Partly allowed

Dilip Gajanan Lonkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014ABA/876/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court heard two anticipatory bail applications regarding offences under Sections 306, 420, and 467 IPC. Bail granted to guarantors Bodke and Revande with strict conditions. Bail to main accused Lonkar rejected as custody necessary for investigation into financial fraud and suicide.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for applicants Haridas Bodke and Sanjay Revande on furnishing bonds with sureties and complying with conditions. Anticipatory bail to applicant Dilip Lonkar rejected.

Dilip Gajanan Lonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vks

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.896 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2014 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.896 OF 2014

¶3

Haridas Kalba Bodke, 2. Sanjay Dattatray Revande .. Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. AND Hemlata Eknath Girme .. Intervener.

¶4

ALONGWITH

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.876 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2014 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.876 OF 2014

¶6

Dilip Gajanan Lonkar .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. AND Hemlata Eknath Girme .. Intervener.

¶7

Mr. R. V. Bansode i/by Ms. Sheetal Mallikarjun Ubale, for the Applicants in application No.896 of 2014.

¶8

Mr. Surel S. Shah, for the applicant in

¶9

Page No.1 of 11

¶10

Application No.876 of 2014.

¶11

Mr. Vikas Kolekar, for the intervener and for applicant in Application Nos.509 of 2014 and 511 of 2014.

¶12

Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State.

¶13

Mr. P. V. Korake, API, Akluj Police Station, Solapur.

¶14

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 9^th September, 2014 P.C.

¶15

These applications are moved for

¶16

anticipatory bail. One Hemlata Eknath Girme

¶17

has given a report to the police on 3.6.2014,

¶18

pursuant to which offence is registered under C.R.No.116 of 2014 at Akluj Police Station, District: Solapur, for the offences punishable

¶19

under Sections 306, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

It is the case of the informant that her

¶21

husband received a notice on 1.10.2012 from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, for

¶22

recovery of an amount of Rs.14 lacs against

¶23

loan of Rs.10 lacs obtained by him in the year

¶24

Page No.2 of 11

¶25

ABA 896-G

¶26

On receipt of the notice, her husband enquired about the said loan and the arrears and at that time the informant and her husband came to know that on 30.08.2005, her husband had taken a loan of Rs.5 lacs in her name and an amount of Rs.5 lacs was also taken for the purpose of construction of house. Therefore, arrears of Rs.14 lacs are due from them. The deceased husband and informant approached the applicant accused Dilip Lonkar, who as per case of the prosecution was the Chairman of one Sumitra Nagari co-operative society. The applicant accused Dilip Lonkar warned them that he would take care of the same and they shall not worry. Thereafter her husband was under pressure. 2 to 3 months thereafter, other applicants namely Haridas Bodake and Sanjay Revade approached the deceased and and warned her deceased husband that they should deposit the amount of loan as they were the guarantors and they were sent by Mr. Lonkar.

¶27

Page No.3 of 11

¶28

ABA 896-G

¶29

Two months thereafter the applicant accused Lonkar arrived in their house and threatened them that they should deposit dues/arrears otherwise, house which was mortgaged with the Society would be auctioned. Thus, according to informant though the loan was not taken by the deceased and the informant, how they were demanding the repayment, therefore, deceased

¶30

came under tremendous pressure as everything

¶31

was false. On 11.11.2013, the deceased committed suicide and thereafter the informant gave report to the police.

¶32

The learned counsel for the applicant accused Dilip Lonkar, has submitted that the applicant accused is innocent and he has not

¶33

committed any fraud or cheating on the informant or the deceased. He submitted that

¶34

loan transaction has taken place i.e. mortgage

¶35

of two lands and mortgage of bungalow by registered deed, two lands which were mortgaged with the bank against loan were

¶36

Page No.4 of 11

¶37

ABA 896-G

¶38

subsequently purchased by the applicant accused Dilip Lonkar and the said transaction is by registered sale deed. There is no doubt of any nature about the transaction. He submitted that the deceased committed suicide on 12.11.2013. However, the F.I.R. was lodged on 3.6.2014 i.e. nearly 8 months after the death i.e. suicide by informant's husband.

¶39

He submitted that the deceased was related to

¶40

the applicant accused. The deceased himself has applied for the loan. So also the daughter of the deceased has given the Power of Attorney to Hemlata to apply for loan. He submitted that the applicant accused has not cheated the informant and the deceased in any

¶41

manner as all the transactions were legally done. He further submitted that no civil suit was filed by the informant or the deceased

¶42

against applicant accused. It is further

¶43

submitted that in the F.I.R. dated 3.6.2014, Hemlata has mentioned that some amount of

¶44

Page No.5 of 11

¶45

ABA 896-G

¶46

Rs.10 lacs was received from the applicant accused towards construction of the bungalow. He submitted that the applicant accused is to be given anticipatory bail as his custody is not required.

¶47

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶48

in Application No.876 of 2014 has submitted that the applicants accused stood guarantor

¶49

for the said loan and they are facing prosecution. They are also respondents in the proceeding under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The learned counsel has submitted that they are not concerned with any other activities alleged in

¶50

the F.I.R. and they have just signed as guarantors. He submitted that they are not concerned with the second mortgage i.e. mortgage of the bungalow and they are not aware of such mortgage. The learned counsel

¶51

for these two applicants submitted that these applicants be released on bail.

¶52

Page No.6 of 11

¶53

ABA 896-G

¶54

The learned APP and the learned

¶55

counsel for the intervener opposed the application. The learned APP has submitted that the applicants accused are charged with offence of cheating, forgery alongwith charges under Section 306, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the applicants accused who are claiming to be the guarantors have signed the papers though the deceased was not

¶56

known to them. She submitted that as per

¶57

investigation by police, no such proposal for loan was submitted by the deceased. She contended that in column No.2 of the proposal of loan application, it is stated that the

¶58

loan of Rs.5 lacs was required for the agricultural purpose while in the mortgage deed of the land, it is stated that the loan of Rs.5 lacs was obtained for the purpose of

¶59

construction of bungalow. She further submitted that the applicant accused Dilip Lonkar has purchased the said two lands which

¶60

Page No.7 of 11

¶61

ABA 896-G

¶62

were mortgaged with the credit society for

¶63

Rs.40 lacs and subsequently he resold those

¶64

lands. She submitted that as the deceased was

¶65

falsely implicated in this recovery, the deceased had had no option to commit suicide

¶66

as he was under tremendous pressure of the

¶67

payment of loan which was never taken.

¶68

Perused the F.I.R. Perused the

¶69

documents which are produced by both parties.

¶70

It appears prima facie that the applicant accused who was holding a key position in the credit society has committed fraud and it

¶71

appears prima facie that the deceased and

¶72

first informant were cheated. Two lands were

¶73

mortgaged and loan was granted of Rs.5 lacs

¶74

each. The Loan application is denied by the

¶75

first informant. The loan was obtained on 30.8.2005 and the mortgage was executed on

¶76

29.8.2005. Surprisingly the applicant accused

¶77

Lonkar purchased those two lands for

¶78

Rs.40,00,00/-. The payment was made in cash.

¶79

Page No.8 of 11

¶80

ABA 896-G

¶81

The learned Sessions Judge has rightly put forth a question that why said loan if taken

¶82

was not satisfied, out of said amount of Rs.40 lacs as mortgaged lands were sold for the purpose of satisfaction of the loan. Further the mortgage of land survey No.119/B/6 wherein bungalow has been constructed also appears suspicious. Under such circumstances

¶83

though the offence of forgery is based on the

¶84

documents, in some cases, custody of the accused is required in order to find out clues and also to find out how money has been handed over and how the documents in respect of these monetary transactions were prepared. In view

¶85

of this, I am not inclined to grant

¶86

anticipatory bail to applicant Dilip Lonkar in Application No.876 of 2014.

¶87

However, the application No.896 of 2014, by two applicants is allowed on the following terms :

Page No.9 of 11

ABA 896-G

Order

I) In the event of arrest of

¶92

applicants in Application No.896 of 2014, in above crime, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of rs.25,000/- by each of them with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/- by each of them.

¶93

II) They shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00noon till filing of the chargesheet.

¶94

III)They shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶95

IV) They shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶96

Application No.876 of 2014 is rejected. The learned counsel for the

¶97

applicant has submitted that the applicant

¶98

accused wants to challenge this order before

¶99

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the

¶100

applicant be protected for four weeks. The execution and implemention of order rejecting

¶101

Page No.10 of 11

¶102

ABA 896-G

¶103

bail to applicant Dilip Lonkar is stayed till 6^th October, 2014. 8. All the four applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶104

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶105

Page No.11 of 11

Dilip Gajanan Lonkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Gajanan Lonkar 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

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zuber Nasir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramesh Ippar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash @ Balu Sadanand Salvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajaram Gopinath Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Anant Shetye Vs the State of Maharashtra