This High Court allowed the applicant's anticipatory bail application in a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust under IPC sections 406, 409, 420, and 120-B, read with MOFA sections, releasing him on ₹25,000 bond.
Application allowed; applicant released on bail upon executing a bond of ₹25,000 with one or more sureties.
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 / 4 5 aba 143 2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2020
Irvin Jivan Vohra .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr.Sandeep R. Karnik, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms.Anamika Malhotral, APP for the Respondent – State.
API Nagpure, Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : MARCH 22, 2021.
P.C. :
Digitally signed by RajeP. RajeP. AherDate: Aher 2021.03.25 14:37:21 +0530
This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.476 of 2019, registered with Amboli Police Station, for the ofences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) read with Section 3, 4 13 and 14 of The Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act-1963 ( “MOFA”, for short).
2 First Information Report (“FIR”, for short), was registered on 3rd December, 2019.
rpa 2 / 4 5 aba 143 2020.doc
3 The case of the complainant is that from June 2012 onwards Mohammad Imtiyaz Khan, who is the Director of Minal Construction Company and his brother – in – law Irvin Vohra (applicant) had conspired and represented that the construction of their projects Snehal Tower would be completed within stipulated time. The complainant was induced to book the fat by payment of 100 percent construction costs in the sum of Rs.56,80,800/-. Construction was not completed and neither the possession of the premises was handed over nor the amount was returned.
4 The applicant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court has been rejected by order dated 14th January, 2020.
5 In the FIR, it is mentioned that the applicant is the relative of the accused no.1. The contention of the applicant is that the only allegation against him is that he had introduced the informant and his father to accused no.2 for booking the fat. The transaction is of 2012 and the FIR was lodged after a period of 4 to 5 years. The applicant is not benefciary of the transaction.
rpa 3 / 4 5 aba 143 2020.doc
6 The applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 20th January, 2020. Since the applicant is relative of the promoter who had agreed to sell the tenement to the complainant.
7 Learned APP fairly pointed out order dated 4th March, 2021, wherein the accused no.1 has been granted bail for a temporary period since the said accused had shown bonafde by fling afidavit–cum–undertaking with the schedule that he will depositing the amount as a condition precedent for being enlarged on bail.
8 Considering the factual aspects, the applicant need not be subjected to custodial interrogation.
9 Hence, I pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
confrmed;
rpa 4 / 4 5 aba 143 2020.doc
( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in charges involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, and property offences.
Irvin Jivan Vohra
State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
