The court partly allowed an anticipatory bail application. It rejected the plea for applicant no.1 due to dishonest conduct and fabrication of documents but granted bail to applicant no.2.
Application of applicant no.1 rejected; bail granted to applicant no.2 on executing surety bond of Rs. 25,000/-.
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.
rpa 1 / 5 12 aba 1057 2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1057 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1887 OF 2021
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr.Atul Bihari Dubey, Advocate for the Applicant in ABA. Mr.Pankaj Pandey, Advocate for the Intervenor in IA. Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : AUGUST 6, 2021.
P.C. :
This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.168 of 2019, registered with Mumbra Police Station, District–Thane, for the ofences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 504 and 506(2) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short).
Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2021.08.07 15:26:37 +0530
2 The case of the complainant is that the complainant was in occupation of room No.202 Datevali, Diva. The entire area wherein the room was situated was to be developed under the
rpa 2 / 5 12 aba 1057 2019.doc
SRA project. The applicants were neighbours of the complainant. The relations were cordial. The applicants were forced to evict the room occupied by them on rental basis. The applicants requested the complainant and his wife to provide their room premises to them. They were requested for fnancial help. The complainant parted an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-, in cash. The room premises viz. Room No.202 situated at KJ Complex, Samrath Nagar, Diva, was provided to applicants for a period of 15 days. Key was handed over to them. Subsequently, the complainant requested the applicants to vacate the premises. Thereafter the applicant no.1 requested that he would extend the stay and execute the agreement with the complainant and would pay an amount of Rs.6000/-, per month as rent. However, no such agreement was executed. No rent was provided by the applicants. Inspite of request, the applicants did not vacate the premises. The complainant and his wife were abused and threatened of dire consequences. Complainant lodged complaint with police on 5th March, 2018. Applicant no.1 showed the documents dated 7th January, 2017, in the form of Mutual Understanding Agreement. The said document was fabricated. Photographs were misused. The applicants continuously occupied the premises without any legal right. FIR was lodged on 9th March, 2019.
rpa 3 / 5 12 aba 1057 2019.doc
3 Applicants had preferred application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and the same is rejected.
4 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the dispute is of civil nature. MOU was prepared between the complainant and applicant no.1. Complainant has fled a suit and the proceedings are pending in the Court. Applicants are in possession of the premises. Custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. The applicant no.1 has assisted complainant in SRA Project, and, he was entitled for commission of 25%. Applicant no.2 has fled complaint of threat against complainant.
5 Learned APP submitted that the claim of the applicants is false. They are unauthorizedly in occupation of the room premises belonging to the complainant. MOU is false. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the MOU is false and fabricated. Since 2017, the applicants are occupying the premises, they do not have legal right to occupy the premises.
6 The claim of the applicants, prima facie, appears to be false. The complainant has legal right over the subject premises. applicants are residing at the said premises, since
rpa 4 / 5 12 aba 1057 2019.doc
2017, without paying any rent. Merely on the ground that suit is feld by the complainant, it cannot be said that the ofence is not made out. False representations were made by applicants. Complainant was abused and threatened. Applicant no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1. Considering the fact that she is a lady and prime role is attributed to applicant no.1, the applicant no.2 need not be subjected to custodial interrogation. The attitude of applicant no.1 is dishonest, which is apparent on the face of record. He has been occupying the premises without any legal right. The document is apparently fabricated. Hence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out by applicant no.1.
:: O R D E R ::
rpa 5 / 5 12 aba 1057 2019.doc
oficer, as and when called for;
( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Whether the disqualifying factor of applicant no.1 warrants rejection of anticipatory bail while granting bail to applicant no.2.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod R. Chavan
Mrs. Baljinder Kaur V. Chavan
State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
