Allowed

Rahul Dilip Dandgaval v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Sept 2017BA/1672/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications filed by accused persons involved in a cheating and forgery case involving an investment company. The High Court allowed bail based on parity with other directors, who had already been granted bail. A PR bond and solvent surety were ordered.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 15,000 each and solvent surety of like amount, with directions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Rahul Dilip Dandgaval Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2017)

1/3

BA.1672-2017

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1672 OF 2017

¶6

Shri Rahul Dilip Dandgaval ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1998 OF 2017

¶9

Vijay Laxman Khunkar ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶10

Mr. Sachin Gite for Applicant in BA No.1672/2017. Mr. Ajinkya Badar i/b Nelson Rajan for applicant in BA No.1998/2017. Ms. A.A. Takalkar, APP for State.

¶11

CORAM: A.S. GADKARI, J.

¶12

DATE : 19^th September 2017.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1] These applications under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. are for bail in CR No. 161 of 2016 dated 20.8.2016 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Nashik under Sections 120, 420, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

2/3

¶16

BA.1672-2017

¶17

2] It is the prosecution case that, the co-accused floated and/or established a company by name House of Investment Company Private Limited and lured the investors by giving assurance of higher returns on their investments with the Company. Accordingly huge investments have been made in the said Company. However, the said Company, neither honoured its promise nor paid assured interest to the investors. One of the investors namely Shri Ganesh G. Desai lodged the first information report in that behalf with the Gangapur Police Station, Nashik. During the course of investigation, police have arrested applicant- Rahul D. Dandgaval on 13.12.2016 and applicant-Vijay Khunkar 15.11.2016. After completion of investigation, police have submitted chargesheet.

¶18

3] The record indicates that the applicant-Rahul was employed as a Relationship Manager and applicant-Vijay was employed as a Business Development Manager (Relationship Manager) with the said Company and they collected amounts on behalf of the Company. The record further indicates that four Directors of the said Company who are also accused in the present crime namely Mahesh S. Nerekar, Anil N. Kothule, Ravindra P. Dalvi and Darshan V. Shirsat preferred an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. before the Trial Court and the Trial Court by its Order dated 18.10.2016 allowed the said application on the ground that the

¶19

3/3

¶20

BA.1672-2017

¶21

alleged offences are based on the documents and the Investigating Officer has already seized the necessary documents.

¶22

4] Perused the chargesheet. It appears from record that the role alleged and played by the present applicants in the said crime is little lesser than role played by the said four accused persons (Directors of Company)

¶23

and therefore the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on the ground of principle of parity.

¶24

Hence the following Order:

¶25

(i) Applicants/accused Rahul Dilip Dandgaval and Vijay Laxman Khunkar be released on bail on their furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/each and solvent surety of like amount.

¶26

(ii) The applicants/accused shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and witnesses and shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

¶27

(iii) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Rahul Dilip Dandgaval v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Dilip Dandgaval 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

Ramesh Bansilal Vyas @ Mamaji Vs Mahadeo Bhau Gavali and Anr.

Sudhir Raosaheb Kumble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Baliram Kavade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Alias Pintu Nandkumar Mohite Vs State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Anil Garud Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Pintu Kazam Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra