Allowed

Shyam Panalal Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Jun 2019ABA/64/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest anticipatory bail to a husband and wife accused of cheating in a property transaction. The court found them to be bona fide purchasers with no evidence of complicity with the buyer, holding custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted conditioned on execution of bond, reporting to police, non-interference with evidence/witnesses, maintaining contact details, and cooperating with investigation.

Shyam Panalal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

ABA 64-19.doc

¶2

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 64 OF 2019

¶4

Shyam Panalal Jaiswal .Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶7

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2019

¶8

Rina Shyam Jaiswal .Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶11

Ms T. A. R. Qureshi, Advocate, for the Applicants in both matters Mr. V. V. Gangurde, APP, for the Respondent – State in both matters

¶12

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 11.06.2019

¶13

P.C.

¶14

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

By these Applications, the Applicants seek pre-arrest

¶16

bail in connection with C. R. No. I-195 of 2018 registered with the

¶17

Naupada Police Station, Thane, for the alleged offences

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

ABA 64-19.doc

¶20

punishable under Sections 420, 417, 418, 415 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Perused the papers. The Applicants are husband and wife. The sum and substance of the allegations qua the Applicants is that when they purchased a flat, being 402, Flat No. 2, Ashirwad Building, Naupada Police Station, Thane, the payment for the said flat was paid by the Applicants to accused – Nilesh Powale and not to the builder. According to the learned counsel for the Applicants, an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- was paid by the Applicants to Nilesh Powale by cheque and Rs. 30,00,000/- in cash. The cost of the flat is stated to be Rs. 1,05,00,000/-. Prima facie, it appears that the Applicants are bonafide purchasers of the said flat who had entered into a registered sale deed with one Nilesh Powale, who had represented to the Applicants that he was the sole owner of the flat after the death of his parents. Learned APP is unable to show any connivance between the Applicants and Nilesh Powale. In the facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not necessary.

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

ABA 64-19.doc

¶24

Considering the aforesaid, the Applications are

¶25

allowed and the Applicants are granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms & conditions :-

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(i) In the event of arrest, the Applicants be enlarged on bail, on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶28

(ii) The Applicants shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station as & when called for by the investigating officer;

¶29

(iii) The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the Complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶30

(iv) The Applicants shall inform their latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶31

(v) The Applicants shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶32

3 of 4

¶33

ABA 64-19.doc

¶34

5. The Applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms

¶35

and are accordingly disposed of.

¶36

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶37

order.

¶38

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶39

4 of 4

Shyam Panalal Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Panalal Jaiswal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Thakur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohit Surendrapal Ahalwat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chintan Zaveri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parvez Akbar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salman Fakhruddin Shaikh@Mangya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Ramswayanwar Tiwari @ Raj Kamal Nishad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.