Allowed

Sandeep Kaluram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Aug 2021ABA/1435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by directors of a private limited company accused of offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 34 and MOFA sections 3, 5, 6, 8, 13. The High Court found that applicants were appointed only as salary-paid directors and had no role in financial affairs, granting pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on PR bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one or more sureties in like sum if arrested in Crime No. I-0067 of 2021.

Sandeep Kaluram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

11-ABA-1435-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANT. BAIL APPLICATION NO.1435 OF 2021

¶4

Sandeep Kaluram Patil & Ors. … Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sanjeev Kadam i/by Mr. K.B.Mundhe for the Applicants.

¶6

Mr. A.A.Palkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 13 th AUGUST, 2021. (Through Video COnferencing)

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard.

¶10

2 It is an application for pre-arrest bail in

¶11

connection with the Crime No.I-0067 of 2021 dated 28 th February, 2021 registered with Kapurbawadi Police Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of

¶12

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3,5,6,8 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (Regulation of the

¶13

Shivgan 1/5

¶14

11-ABA-1435-2021.odt

¶15

Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (‘MOFA’ for short). Applicants were directors of M/s. Tirupati Balaji Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘Company’ for short). Applicant No.1 was appointed as director of the said Company on 4 th June, 2012 and he ceased to be a director from 4 th April, 2016. Applicant no.2 ceased to be a director with efect from 1 st July, 2015. These facts were found in Form No. DIR-11 and the Form No. DIR12, fled with ROC. Prosecution case is, that the company had taken up development projects, in Navi Mumbai and Thane. However they ventured to construct buildings without requisite development permissions. For that reason, ofences were registered against the company and its directors including the applicants at the instance of aggrieved fat purchasers. Although the applicants were accused in Crime Nos.66 of 2016 and 87 of 2017 at Khandeshwar Police Station in the ofence registered at the instance of the fat purchasers, they have been granted

¶16

Shivgan 2/5

¶17

11-ABA-1435-2021.odt

¶18

bail. Crime in question came to be registered on the First Information Report fled by Chetan Bhaskar Birari, who had agreed to purchase a fat from the said company on certain terms and conditions. He paid Rs.8,02,450/- to the Company. He would allege, although the amount was paid in 2015, company did not construct the building nor refunded money. Upon enquiry about company’s projects, he came to know that company had no requisite development permissions. In these circumstances, he lodged the First Information Report against the company and its directors and the applicants.

¶19

3 It is applicants’ case that they were appointed as directors being local persons to assist the development projects and they had never, participated in the day-to-day afairs of the company. In support of these submissions, Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel for the applicants has relied on a statement of Managing Director of the Company. I have perused it. Vide this statement (At page 30), the Managing

¶20

Shivgan 3/5

¶21

11-ABA-1435-2021.odt

¶22

Director of the Company, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singh, would admit that applicants were appointed as salary paid directors vide Resolution dated 4 th June, 2012. He would admit that all bank transactions and cash handling is done by accountant, Shri Dharmendra Zha. In other words, the Managing Director of the Company absolves both the applicants from all the liabilities of the company.

¶23

4 In consideration of the facts stated above, apparently, applicants were not responsible to day-to-day afairs of the company nor they were authorised signatories to operate bank account of the company, although they were directors since 2012 to 2015. Prima-facie, it appears, that they had no role to play in the fnancial afairs of the company. In consideration of these facts and for the reasons stated above , case is made out for granting prearrest bail to the applicants. Hence, the following order:

¶24

Shivgan 4/5

¶25

11-ABA-1435-2021.odt

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No.I-0067 of 2021 registered with Kapurbawadi Police Station , they shall be released on executing PR bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one or more sureties in like sum.

¶28

5 The application is accordingly allowed and

¶29

disposed of.

¶30

6 It is made clear that observations made here-in-

¶31

above be construed as expression of opinion for the purpose of bail only and the same shall not in any way infuence the trial in other proceedings.

¶32

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶33

Shivgan 5/5

Sandeep Kaluram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kaluram Patil 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

Pritesh @ Sonu Mahesh Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Dadarao Sonavane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nasir Kasam Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Baban Dinkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Gopal Bhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Inderlal Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra