Anticipatory bail application rejected. The High Court held the case involves serious cheating and forgery affecting the informant and two banks. The court found the applicant stalled investigation and no case for bail was made out.
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 / 7 [email protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2021
Prabhakar Umesh Shetti .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1292 OF 2020 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2021
Rakesh Rohira …. Intervenor IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Prabhakar Umesh Shetti .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .... Respondent ….... • Mr.A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for Applicant. • Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State/Respondent. • Mr.Lokesh D. Zade, Advocate for Intervenor.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 12th JULY, 2021 (Through video conferencing)
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.366/2015 registered with Dahisar Police Station,
Nesarikar
2 / 7 [email protected]
Mumbai, on 08/08/2015, under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 / 7 [email protected]
period, possession was not given and the agreed rent was also not paid to the informant. The informant approached the society for transferring the flat in his name. When he submitted the documents provided by the Applicant to him, the society infomed him that the share certificate and NOC of the society were forged documents and that since past 10 years, maintenance charges for the flat were not paid. The Applicant did not give any satisfactory answers. The informant has stated in his FIR that he had paid Rs.50,00,000/- to the Applicant, but the Applicant has not given the flat and has not returned the money.
4 / 7 [email protected]
However, according to Mr.Saraogi, the informant has not fulfilled his part of obligation in execution of cancellation deed and other relevant documents. Mr.Saraogi submitted that the Applicant has till today paid or deposited Rs.30,20,000/- in total and hence the balance amount as per the MOU has remained at Rs.44,80,000/-. Mr.Saraogi submitted that since the informant has not fulfilled his part of obligation, the Applicant has not paid balance amount. He submitted that no fault can be found with the Applicant as he has sufficiently established his bonafides. He further submitted that the Applicant is willing to deposit the balance amount of Rs.44,80,000/- in this Court. He submitted that the informant had approached competent authorities for possession of the flat.
5 / 7 [email protected]
submitted that it is a serious case where not only the informant is cheated, but two banks are also cheated. He has relied on the investigation carried out in this connection.
part with his money way back in the year 2015. Serious aspect of this matter is about share certificate and NOC purportedly given by the society. Those documents were given to the informant by the Applicant. The FIR itself mentions that those documents were forged documents. Signatures and stamps on those documents were forged. Therefore this offence assumes seriousness.
6 / 7 [email protected]
7 / 7 [email protected]
There again loan was asked for Rs.50,00,000/-. There again share certificate and NOC were submitted. Again in that case, installments were not paid. On enquiry it was found that the share certificate and NOC were forged documents.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is warranted in a case involving serious cheating and forgery of documents affecting multiple financial institutions.
Whether the gravity of the offence, including stalling investigation through repeated bail applications, negates the requirement for arrest.
Whether the applications are dismissed given the lack of bonafides and established deceit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhakar Umesh Shetti
State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
