Dismissed

Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Tanti v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jun 2018ABA/130/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court vacated interim anticipatory bail granted on 24th January 2018 after finding that the applicant had deceived the court by falsely assuring he would deposit money. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, and the deceptive practice was deprecated.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief granted on 24th January 2018 vacated; Anticipatory Bail Application rejected.

Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Tanti Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

10-aba130.18.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2018

¶6

Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Tanti ….Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent.

¶7

Mr. A.K. Milwala i/by D.M. Kapadia for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Hulke APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 19^th JUNE, 2018.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

By an order dated 24th January 2018, the Applicant was granted interim relief on the ground that, the Applicant made a statement that with a view to prove his bonafide and without prejudice to his rights and contentions to be raised at the time of hearing of the present Application and/or in any other proceedings to be adopted by him, the Applicant was ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.87,40,200/- in the Registry of this Court in two equal installments.

¶11

2 The statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant on 24^th January, 2018 has been in detailed recorded in the said order. On the basis of the said statement only, the Applicant

¶12

1/2

¶13

ssm 2 10-aba130.18.sxw

¶14

was granted interim relief by this Court.

¶15

3 Mr. Milwala, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant today makes a statement that, the Applicant never instructed the earlier advocate to make such a statement and therefore, the Applicant did not comply with the solemn statement made by him on 24^th January 2018, before this Court. The practice adopted by the Applicant is a deplorable practice and is hereby deprecated. The conduct of the Applicant cannot be countenance. It is clear from the record that, the Applicant only with a view to procure interim relief in his favour, made a false statement before this Court on 24^th January 2018 and succeeded in it.

¶16

It is the settled position of law that, an Order procured on the basis of a false statement should not hold field even for a while and has to be set aside on the count alone.

¶17

4 In view thereof, the interim relief granted by Order dated 24^th January, 2018 is hereby vacated forthwith.

¶18

As a consequence thereof, the Application is rejected.

¶19

2/2

Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Tanti v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaybhai Govindbhai Tanti 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

Sahejad Mustaq Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Ratan Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Chandraraj Kanojia and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shyam Pandurang Tambe @ Savio Rodriks Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aabid Mohd. Ali S/O Amir Mohd. Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maqsood Ahmed Nazir Ahmed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra