Single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating case. The court noted the first informant had returned the amount, expressed no grievance, and stated custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Release on bail on execution of P.R. Bond in Rs.25,000/ one or two sureties in the like amount.
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.
1 12- ABA No.347-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.347 OF 2019
Savita Narendra Kothari ] … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ] … Respondent
Mr. Nitesh Mohite, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. Y.A. Thakur, PN 3008 attached to Kamothe Police Station present.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 13 JUNE, 2019.
P. C. :-
420, 465, 467, 468 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
No.21, Sector 22, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. This flat was belonging to the present applicant and her husband. When the first
Purti Parab
1 of 4
2 12- ABA No.347-19.doc
informant visited the flat, he saw that it was occupied by a tenant Manoj Khetre. Said Manoj Khetre also confirmed that the flat belonged to the present applicant and her husband. Thereafter, Sanjay Yadav arranged a meeting between the first informant, the applicant and her husband. The first informant showed interest in purchasing the flat for Rs.52,50,000/-. On various occasions, he paid in all Rs.18, 75,000/-. The applicant and her husband executed Part Sale Agreement dated 04/12/2017 which was registered with Sub Registrar, Panvel vide No.13846/2017. The first informant paid some more amount for stamp duty and paid further amount to the estate agent Sanjay Yadav. However, the said transaction could not be completed and the informant came to know that the applicant and her husband had already sold that flat to one Sachin Rakshe. Thus, the first informant came to know that he was cheated. The FIR mentions that out of amount of Rs.19,00,000/- which were paid by the first informant, the amount of Rs.15,35,000/- were repaid to him and balance of Rs.3,65,000/- was misappropriated. Based on these allegations, the FIR was lodged.
Purti Parab
2 of 4
3 12- ABA No.347-19.doc
3 of 4
4 12- ABA No.347-19.doc
present applicant. The first informant has mentioned that the applicant has returned the entire amount to him. He has further stated that the present applicant is not involved in the offence and therefore he had no grievance against her. His similar supplementary statement is recorded on 12/06/2019. In view of this statement and the affidavit, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and she deserves grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Purti Parab 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant deserves grant of anticipatory bail given the forgiveness by the first informant and death of the husband.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Savita Narendra Kothari
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
