Partly allowed

Pinkhem Investments Company Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2017WP/387/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It held that the direction to execute a bond for Rs. 5,83,16,864 was unjustified given the prosecution's figures and frozen amounts. The Court reduced the bond quantum to Rs. 93,50,414.07 and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The quantum of the bond to be executed by the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 5,83,16,864 to Rs. 93,50,414.07.

Pinkhem Investments Company Private Limited Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ssk 1/2 WP 387-15 -7/2/17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 387 OF 2015

¶4

Pinkhem Investments Company Private Ltd. … Petitioner vs.

¶5

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Piyush Raheja i/by Mr. Santosh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sandeep Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. V. G. Gangurde, A.P.P. for respondent no.2/State.

¶8

Coram : Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 7^th February, 2017

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

After the matter is partly argued, Mr. Raheja, the learned advocate for the petitioner restricts the petition to the direction contained in the impugned order to the petitioner to execute a bond that it will deposit amount of Rs.5,83,16,864/- in future if it is revealed that this amount had been wrongfully gained by it in the matter. He points out that according to the prosecution the only amount which has allegedly come to the account of the petitioner is of Rs.1,02,49,178. Therefore, the Special Court could not have directed for execution of the bond for an amount higher than that amount. He also points out that on 2^nd September, 2014 the amount lying in his account which has been freezed is of Rs.8,98,763.93 ps. The impugned order directs that the petitioner shall not withdraw that amount from it's account. On giving credit to the amount lying in the Bank

¶11

ssk 2/2 WP 387-15 -7/2/17

¶12

account upon which a restriction has been put upon the petitioner from it's withdrawal of the balance amount that may have to be recovered from the petitioner would be of Rs.93,50,414.07 ps. Mr. Shinde, the learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 in fairness concedes that the direction to the petitioner to execute bond in the sum of Rs.5,83,16,864 cannot be justified. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed off by modifying the quantum of the bond to be executed by the petitioner. The amount of the bond to be executed by it is reduced to Rs.93,50,414.07 ps.

¶13

[Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.]

Pinkhem Investments Company Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinkhem Investments Company Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) and Anr.

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

Shrirang Devji Sankpal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bharat Jayantilal Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

About U Fashion Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. Vs Controller of Legal Metrology and Ors.

Mayuresh Bhalchandra Bhandarkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zahid Hussein Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Samir Kumar Saha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.