This High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed in a criminal involving alleged dispossession of property. The court rejected the prayer, holding that the agreement and arbitration award did not support the applicant's claim of continued possession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ISM
1 912.124.19 aba.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2019
Manmohan Desraj Anand .....Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
Mr. Abhishek Pungliya advocate for the applicant Mr. N. B. Patil APP for the State
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : JANUARY 16, 2019.
P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length. Heard
the learned APP.
2 In Crime No. 756 of 2018 registered with Yerawada Police Station, Pune for offence punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail.
2 912.124.19 aba.doc
custodial interrogation of the present applicant in the crime in question is not warranted for the reason, there exist a civil dispute between the applicant and the complainant. The property about which allegation of dispossession are made, since inception is in possession of the applicant being owner of the same. According to him, the complainant remained in permissive possession of the same in view of the terms of the agreement dated 15/02/2006. He would then urge that a civil dispute initiated by the applicant being Special Civil Suit no. 766 of 2007 is stayed pursuant to the order of this Court. According to him, the Arbitrator has already adjudicated the rights of the parties and that being so, it cannot be inferred that applicant has dispossessed the complainant and has taken over the possession.
3 912.124.19 aba.doc
complainant are governed by the terms of the Agreement dated 05/02/2006. Clause 1 of the said Agreement reads thus:
4 912.124.19 aba.doc
possession of the Suit. In the wake of above, the claim of the applicant that be being owner of the property was in possession thereof cannot be inferred from the documents on record.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted where a civil dispute and alleged dispossession are present and an arbitrator has already adjudicated rights.
Whether the applicant, claiming ownership and possession amidst a stayed civil suit, has established grounds for bail under Section 454, 380 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
Manmohan Desraj Anand
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
