Allowed

Chandrashekhar Revansiddha Shivgunde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Jul 2021ABA/1236/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating case. The applicant established bona fides by depositing Rs. 3 lakhs. Bail was subject to furnishing a surety bond, and the depositor's ability to withdraw the amount was left open until the trial concludes.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.

Chandrashekhar Revansiddha Shivgunde Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

07-ABA-1236-21.odt

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1236 OF 2021

¶5

Chandrashekhar Revansiddha Shivgunde.... Applicant

¶6

versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶7

Mr.Sharad T. Bhosale, Advocate for Applicant.

¶8

Smt.Veera Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 02nd JULY, 2021
 (Through video conferencing)

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶12

with C.R.No. 175 of 2021 dated 16/04/2021, registered at

¶13

Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur, under sections 420, 406

¶14

read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

2. Heard Mr. Sharad Bhosale, learned counsel for the

¶16

applicant and Smt.Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State.

¶17

Nesarikar

¶18

2 / 4 07-ABA-1236-21.odt

¶19

3.The FIR is lodged by one Ram Ingale. Gist of the FIR is
that the applicant represented to the informant that he was
knowing one Builder Rajesh Prachande and that the informant
should invest his money in the project of Rajesh Prachande. The
applicant induced him to enter into financial transactions with
Rajesh Prachande. The informant had paid Rs. 13,03,000/-, out
of which Rs.5 lakhs were returned. But there was
misappropriation of Rs. 08,03,000/-. The informant had lost
that amount. He was not given any flat as promised. According
to the informant, the applicant and the other accused Rajesh
Prachande in collusion with each other had caused this
monetary loss to the informant. On this basis the FIR is lodged.

¶20

4. Learned APP on instructions stated that, out of Rs.
08,03,000/-, on 18/3/2021, Rs. 2 lakhs were transferred in the
account of the first informant by Rajesh Prachande. Therefore,
the amount involved in this offence remains at Rs.06,03,000/-..

¶21

5. On the last occasion, learned counsel for the Applicant

¶22

3 / 4 07-ABA-1236-21.odt

¶23

on instructions had stated that to establish his bonafides, the
Applicant was voluntarily willing to deposit Rs.3 lakhs before
the Court of J.M.F.C. Solapur, within four weeks from
21/05/2021.

¶24

6. Today, I am informed by learned counsel for the
Applicant that this amount of Rs.3 lakhs was deposited before
that Court as stated by the learned counsel.

¶25

7. Learned APP concurs with this statement. Learned

¶26

counsel for the Applicant further states that the Applicant has no
objection if the informant withdraws this amount from the
Court, where the amount is deposited.

¶27

8. Considering this situation, the Applicant has
sufficiently established his bonafides and therefore he can be
protected by an order of anticipatory bail.

¶28

9. Hence, the following order :

¶29

07-ABA-1236-21.odt

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No. 175 of 2021 dated 16/04/2021,
registered at Vijapur Naka Police Station,
Solapur, the Applicant is directed to be released
on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶33

(ii) The informant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only), which is deposited in the Court of J.M.F.C. Solapur.

¶34

(iii) It is made clear that the rights and contentions of the parties, including the right to the amount, which is deposited by the Applicant in the Court, is specifically left open to be decided at the end of the trial.

¶35

(iv) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Chandrashekhar Revansiddha Shivgunde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Revansiddha Shivgunde 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

Raosaheb Maruti Kambale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chhaya Chandrakant Garud Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Sarjerao Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh @ Bhaiyya Bhika Thakare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govindsing Balusing Rajput(Yadav) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aashish @ Bablu Anil Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra