Allowed

Bharat Omprakash Bhushan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Aug 2021ABA/2073/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed anticipatory bail application in a cheating and ownership flat offence. Court confirmed interim protection granted in 2018, holding custodial interrogation unnecessary given case age and settled nature, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged applicant on bail upon arrest by executing PR Bond of Rs. 20,000 with sureties, subject to conditions of non-influence, residence update, and cooperation with investigation.

Bharat Omprakash Bhushan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

3-ABA-2073-2018.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA SHAGUFTA Q PATHAN Q PATHAN Date: 2021.08.11 16:37:34 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2073 OF 2018

¶5

Bharat Omprakash Bhushan ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Singh Diwakar Ramashray a/w Mr. Rahul Mishra and Mr. Kishor Salunkhe for the Applicant

¶7

Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent–State

¶8

PSI Mr. Dilip Palve from Nallasopara Police Station, is present

¶9

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. MONDAY, 9th AUGUST 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2 By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. I-152 of 2016 registered with the Nallasopara Police Station, Palghar, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act.

¶13

1/4

¶14

3-ABA-2073-2018.doc

¶15

3 Vide order dated 11^th October 2018, this Court (Coram : Prakash D. Naik, J.) had granted interim protection to the applicant on certain terms and conditions. In the said order, it is stated that admittedly the amount has been handed over to one Mr. Bathiya and that all the coaccused in the said case were arrested and were subsequently released on bail. It is also a matter of record that charge-sheet has been filed against the arrested accused. The transaction is of the year 2016. Although, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not a partner of the firm i.e. M/s. Siddharth Enterprises and was only an employee, the said submission is vehemently refuted by the learned A.P.P. Learned A.P.P submits that during investigation, it is transpired that the applicant was also a partner of the said firm.

¶16

4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accusedVinod Vallabhdas Bathiya as well as the respondent No.2-complainantRakesh Singh have amicably settled the dispute. He further submits that the said co-accused-Vinod Bathiya has filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 2820 of 2019 seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR i.e. C.R. No. I-152 of 2016 registered with the Nallasopara Police Station, Palghar. He submits that in the said writ petition, the respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit giving his no objection to the quashing of the said

¶17

2/4

¶18

3-ABA-2073-2018.doc

¶19

complaint. It appears that the said writ petition is still pending before the Division Bench.

¶20

5 Be that as it may, considering that the case is of the year 2016 and that investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed against the arrested co-accused in the said case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted. As far as merits are concerned, the allegation of the complainant is that the amount was handed over to the co-accused in the presence of the applicant and not to the applicant directly.

¶21

6 Considering the aforesaid, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 11^th October 2018, stands confirmed on the following terms and conditions :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount ;

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper or attempt to contact or influence the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶25

3/4

¶26

3-ABA-2073-2018.doc

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶28

(iv) The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency;

¶29

7 The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

8 It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding this application.

¶31

9 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶33

4/4

Bharat Omprakash Bhushan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Omprakash Bhushan 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

Uday Suresh Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uday Suresh Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uday Suresh Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailendra Kumar Karmawat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laxman Mahadev Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mehmoodali Sharafatali Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra