Dismissed

Jayant N. Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jun 2018ABA/476/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay vacated interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to Jayant N. Mehta and dismissed the main application. The court cancelled relief because the applicant repeatedly failed to honour undertakings to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs, holding that the interim order was procured through false statements.

What did the court decide?

Vacated interim relief; dismissed anticipatory bail application and intervention applications.

Jayant N. Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

901-aba-476-18

¶2

Nalawade

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.476 OF 2018 Jayant N. Mehta vs. The State of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.671 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.250 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2018

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶7

Mr. Vedchetan Patil i/by Vaibhav Bagade for the Applicant. Mr. Yogesh Gandhi with Mr.Atmaram Pathde, Pravin Naik i/by Jondhale & Co. for the Intervener in Application No.253/2018.

¶8

Mr. Laxminarayan Shukla i/by Legal Vision for the Intervener in application No.255/2018.

¶9

Mr. Sayeed Mulani with Shabhana Waghmar for the Intervener in Application No.671/2018/

¶10

Mr. Pranot Pawar i/by Maharashtra Law Associates for the intervener in Application No.250/2018.

¶11

Ms. P.M.Bhansali for proposed Intervener Parag Gandhi. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP. for the State.

¶12

Page-1/4

¶13

901-aba-476-18

¶14

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15^th June, 2018

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The applicant was granted interim relief on

¶17

10.4.2018 on his filing written undertaking dated 10.4.2018 before this Court. The applicant had undertaken

¶18

to deposit an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- in this Court on or before 23.4.2018. As the applicant could not comply with and/or honour the undertaking given by him on 10.4.2018, he again filed a fresh undertaking dated 23.4.2018 before this Court and this Court by its order dated 24.4.2018 permitted him to pay the said sum of Rs.50,00,000/- directly to the original complainant Shri. Harshad D. Patel. At the time of hearing of the application on 10.4.2018 a submission was made on behalf of the applicant that, if the applicant fails to deposit the amount mentioned in Exh. B of the said undertaking within stipulated period, interim relief will be vacated. The applicant also gave schedule of payment and amounts accepted by him from other witnesses which is annexed at

¶19

Page-2/4

¶20

901-aba-476-18

¶21

Exh. B to the said undertaking dated 23.4.2018.

¶22

This Court showing leniency to the applicant accepted the modified undertaking dated 23.4.2018 and in furtherance thereof the applicant was supposed to pay the first instalment of Rs.50,00,000/- which payment has not been paid till date.

¶23

It is further to be noted here that, today also the applicant is submitting excuses in not complying with the undertaking dated 23.4.2018. It is thus clear that, the applicant with a view to procure the interim relief initially submitted a false undertaking before this Court which by a subsequent undertaking dated 23.4.2018 modified and the same has been accepted by this Court by its order dated 24.4.2018. It appears from the conduct of the applicant that, he was well aware on 10.4.2018 and 23.4.2018 that, he was and is unable to comply with the statements/undertaking given therein to this Court. It is thus clear that the applicant only for the purpose of procuring interim relief made false statement before this Court and also brazently filed undertakings to that effect

¶24

Page-3/4

¶25

901-aba-476-18

¶26

which are not honoured till today. It is the settled position

¶27

of law that an Order procured by making false statement should not remain in force and has to be set side the moment Court realizes that a false statement is made before it in that behalf.

¶28

In view of the above, the interim relief granted by Order dated 10.4.2018 is vacated with immediate effect. As

¶29

a consequence thereof, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶30

In view of the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, the applications for intervention do not survive and are accordingly disposed off.

¶31

(A.S.GADKARI, J.)

¶32

Page-4/4

Jayant N. Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayant N. Mehta 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

Wasim Anwar Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Faisallunisa Zafar Ahmad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjeetkumar Viren and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetan Narendra Dhakan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Muzaffar Husain Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Kumar Samarbahadur Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.