Dismissed

Bharat Mrugendra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Sept 2014ABA/986/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected anticipatory bail applications for Bharat Mrugendra Patil and Kaushik Bharat Patil. The court found a prima facie case of cheating due to the suppression of prior sale agreements of the same land and granted interim protection to Bharat Patil for three weeks while challenging. Kaushik Bharat Patil received no interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; interim bail extended to Bharat Mrugendra Patil for three weeks; no interim protection granted to Kaushik Bharat Patil.

Bharat Mrugendra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

8.ABA986 & 1147_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 986 OF 2014

¶5

Bharat Mrugendra Patil … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1147 OF 2014

¶7

Kaushik Bharat Patil … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Shivaji A. Masal, Advocate for the applicants in both the matters. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶9

Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, Advocate for the complainant.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 19^th September, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

These Applications are moved for anticipatory bail, as the

¶13

applicants/accused are prosecuted for the offences punishable under

¶14

sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 474 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One

¶15

Sanjay Tapkire has given a report to the police at Vishrambaug Police Station, Sangli, pursuant to which, an office was registered at C.r. No. M9 of 2014 on 24^th May, 2014.

¶16

It is the case of the prosecution that Smt. Kusum Mrugendra Patil was the original owner of the land admeasuring 669.7 sq. mtrs. situated in City Survey No. 13560 at Vasant Colony, Miraj, District Sangli. By the gift

¶17

1 of 5

¶18

8.ABA986 & 1147_2014.doc

¶19

deed dated 18^th July, 2006, the said Kusum Mrugendra Patil gifted the said property to her grandsons Amit Bharat Patil and Kaushik Bharat Patil/applicant.

¶20

It is the case of the informant that Amit Bharat Patil and Kaushik Bharat Patil/applicant had entered into an Agreement of Sale of the said property with the informant on 5^th August, 2009. Applicant Bharat Mrugendra Patil along with his wife was the consenting party. The consideration amount of the said transaction was fixed at Rs.90 lakhs, out of which Rs.15 lakhs was paid by cheque to Amit Patil and Kaushik Patil/applicant However, one of the family member Sujata Patil was also having interest in the said property and the present applicants/accused and Sujata Patil have entered into an agreement of development of construction standing on the said plot with one member of Nanwani family. It is the case of the prosecution that when the informant gave advertisement in respect of development of the plot, at that time, one Annasaheb Upadhyay took objection and informed that the accused persons have executed the agreements in respect of sale of said plot with him and Mr. Upadhyay took objection to the development. The applicants/accused have suppressed the transaction in respect of the said land from the informant. It is further case of the prosecution that the informant thereafter had to pay big amounts to number of parties. He

¶21

2 of 5

¶22

8.ABA986 & 1147_2014.doc

¶23

also found that the applicant/accused along with coaccused had already entered into an Agreement of Sale on 6^th June, 2009 with one Milind Patil/accused no. 4 and subsequently they sold the said plot by registered sale deed dated 3^rd October, 2013 with Milind Patil. Hence, the informant gave this complaint to the police.

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that the applicants/accused have not committed any offence. It is a civil transaction between the parties. He submitted that the civil suit filed by the informant against the applicants/accused under the Specific Relief Act was rejected. He further submitted that the applicants/accused have not committed any offence much less the offence of fraud or forgery or misappropriation as alleged. He further pointed out that the applicants/accused have entered into an agreement of development with Nanwani in respect of Commercial Complex about the structure standing on the said plot and the Agreement entered into with the informant is in respect of the open plot and therefore, these are the two agreements, which should not be mixed up. He further submitted that the custody of the applicants/accused are not required. He further submitted that the applicants/accused have not entered into development agreement with Nanwani but it was only an Agreement of Sale of the plot.

¶25

3 of 5

¶26

8.ABA986 & 1147_2014.doc

¶27

Learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the Applications. It was pointed out that the applicants/accused have sold the same property to 2 to 3 persons by suppressing the facts of the previous sale. It was further submitted that the applicants/accused have acted in connivance with an intention to deceive the informant for huge amount. The applicants/accused have till now accepted total amount of Rs.67 lakhs from the informant and other witnesses. Thus, they have played fraud on the informant. The police required custody of the applicant/accused with a view to find out whether the amount has been siphoned and also want to procure the original documents from the applicants/accused.

¶28

Perused the impugned sale deed entered into by the applicant/accused no. 2 and original accused no. 3 with the informant and other parties. The transaction initially may give the impression of the civil nature, however, such transaction having facade of civil nature, if perused cautiously, reveals a criminal element of cheating which is prima facie found in the present transaction. The applicant/accused Kaushik Patil and coaccused Amit Patil, who are the sons of applicant/accused Bharat Patil have entered into an Agreement of Sale with accused no. 4 on 6^th June, 2009 and immediately after 2 months i.e. 5^th August, 2009 they entered into an Agreement of Sale with the complainant in respect of the

¶29

4 of 5

¶30

8.ABA986 & 1147_2014.doc

¶31

same land. From both the parties, Kaushik Patil and Amit Patil have accepted money of the said transaction. Prima facie it shows that the applicants/accused have knowledge of the transaction which they entered into. However, they suppressed the said facts from the complainant. Selling the same property to 2 to 3 persons cannot be stated to be criminal act or it may not attract even Section 420, if the previous transactions are disclosed to the subsequent parties. However, suppression of facts of the previous transaction from the subsequent parties, prima facie discloses the intention to cheat and therefore, I am of the view that the applicants/accused have committed an offence of cheating and their custodial interrogations are required. Hence, the Applications for pre arrest bail are rejected.

¶32

The learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to challenge the order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of this, the interim protection earlier granted to Bharat Mrugendra Patil to continue for three weeks. However, there was no interim protection granted to Kaushik Bharat Patil, therefore, no protection is given to applicant/Kaushik Bharat Patil.

¶33

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶34

5 of 5

Bharat Mrugendra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Mrugendra Patil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hannursidha Kellappa Shejale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India Vs Beghani Talab Suleman @ Bashir @ T Kara and Anr.

Yogesh Sadashiv Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Dattu Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Rajaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balkrushna @ Balaji Shivaji @ Shivajirao Katare Vs the State of Maharashtra