Allowed

Nikhil Uday Kumar Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Aug 2021ABA/1302/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two anticipatory bail applications, the High Court granted interim protection to applicants accused of partnership fraud. The court accepted the applicants' statement offering to deposit balance funds, held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and granted bail with specific conditions including reporting and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants granted interim bail with P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- each, required to report to IO and not tamper with evidence.

Nikhil Uday Kumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

aba 1302.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

Digitally signed by URMILA URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2021.08.09 18:17:39 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1302 OF 2018

¶6

Mr.Nikhil Uday Kumar Singh …. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent

¶7

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 900 OF 2018

¶8

Uday Kumar Singh …. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. ….. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil, for the Applicants in both ABAs. Mr.N.B. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr.Ranjit B. Chavan - API, Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai.

¶10

CORAM : M. S.KARNIK, J.

¶11

DATE : 09th AUGUST, 2021

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. By these Applications, applicants seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 171 of 2018 registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. It is the case of the applicants that the applicant 'Uday'

¶14

1/5

¶15

aba 1302.18.doc

¶16

was the partner of 'Nirman Developers'. The applicant in ABA/1302/2018 has invested almost Rs. 20 lakhs in the partnership frm. In lieu of this investment, the applicant (Nikhil) was permitted to sell two fats. Accordingly, the consideration received from the sale of these two fats to the tune of Rs.10,87,125/- was deposited in the account of the frm.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecution that without the other partners having any knowledge, the applicant - Nikhil i.e. the applicant in ABA/1302/2018 who happens to be Uday's son, opened an account in the name of frm. In the application, it is alleged that this was done by father and son only with a view to deprive other partners the beneft of the sale proceeds arising from the sale of the fats.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant in ABA/900/2018 i.e. 'Uday' has invested more than 50 lakhs in his capacity as a partner of the partnership frm. The allegations are that son -' Nikhil' opened a bank account in the name of the partnership frm. The money to the tune of Rs.10,87,125/- belonging to the partnership frm was deposited in this account. It is not in the dispute that out of an amount of Rs.

¶19

2/5

¶20

aba 1302.18.doc

¶21

10,87,125/-, an amount of Rs.5,30,000/- has been reverted back in the account of the frm. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that this amount in fact does not belong to the frm, but is the return from the investment that was made by the applicant - Nikhil in the business of the partnership frm. It is always open for the applicant in ABA/1302/2018 to resort to the appropriate remedies to recover the agreed returns on his investment that he has made in the partnership frm. However, so far as the amount of Rs. 10,87,125/- is concerned, which has been deposited in the account of the partnership frm opened by Nikhil in respect of which it is alleged that other partners had no knowledge of, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that to show his bonafdes and without prejudice to the rights and contentions, 'Nikhil' (applicant in ABA No. 1302 of 2018) is willing to deposit the balance sum of Rs.5,57,125/- in this Court within a period of 6 weeks from today. Statement is accepted. Learned APP is granted permission to move an application for transfer of the amount to the concerned trial Court after the charge-sheet is fled.

¶22

Learned App on instructions of the Investigating OfÏcer says that charge-sheet would be fled within a period of 8 weeks from today. It is open for the trial Court to pass

¶23

3/5

¶24

aba 1302.18.doc

¶25

appropriate orders in respect of the deposit made. This does not appear to be a case where custodial interrogation is called for.

¶26

The applicants therefore deserve to be granted prearrest bail. The applicants are granted interim protection since 27/04/2018 and have co-operated with the investigation. Hence the following order.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(i) Application is allowed.

¶29

(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with C.R. No. 171 of 2018 registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station, applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶30

(iii) The applicants shall report to the Investigating OfÏcer as and when called for.

¶31

(iv) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶32

4/5

¶33

aba 1302.18.doc

¶34

(v) The applicants shall furnish any changed mobile number or report any change of his residential address to the Investigating OfÏcer.

¶35

(vi) Statement recorded in paragraph 3 is accepted & the applicants to abide by the same.

¶36

Application is disposed of.

¶37

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶38

5/5

Nikhil Uday Kumar Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Uday Kumar Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hema Dinesh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish Sitaram Shastri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr Sachin Jawaharlal Chilgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kavita Mohansingh Kunchikurve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sadanand Babulnath Dixit and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uday Kumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra