Allowed

Kalyanrao Jagannath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Feb 2021ABA/249/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating case (IPC 420, 406 and MOFA) after finding that he had complied with prior directives to deposit the disputed amount and that the dispute was strictly private.

What did the court decide?

Granted release on bail upon arrest in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount if the applicant is arrested in connection with C.R.No.186/2018.

Kalyanrao Jagannath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 ABA 249-2019.odt

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 249 OF 2019

¶5

Kalyanrao Jagannath Jadhav.... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vikrant Chavan a/w. Ms. Chandni Bhatt i/b. M/s. C. K. Legal,
Advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State/Respondent.

¶8

Ms. Roshni M. Thakkar i/b. The Juris Partners, for Original
Complainant.

¶9

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 18th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶12

with C.R.No.186/2018 dated 7th June 2018 registered with Warje-

¶13

Malwadi Police Station, Dist : Pune, under Sections 420 and 406 of

¶14

Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3, 4 and 13(1), 13(2)
of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (‘MOFA’
in short).

¶15

2. The F.I.R. was lodged on 7th June 2018 by one

¶16

Manjusha

¶17

2 / 4 1 ABA 249-2019.odt
Ravindra Sankla. The gist of the F.I.R. is that, the applicant was in
need of money to complete his project. He made a representation
to the informant that he wanted financial help and in lieu of loan,
he was prepared to give certain units in his project, as security. The
informant gave Rs.3 Crores by way of loan. It is alleged that the
applicant had entered into an M.O.U. wherein, he had agreed to
transfer those units to the informant in case, he was unable to
return his money. It is the case of the first informant that the units
which the applicant had agreed to transfer in the name of the first
informant were sold to third parties. The applicant did not return

¶18

the amount and therefore, the informant was cheated and on this
basis, F.I.R. was lodged.

¶19

3. Heard Mr. Vikrant Chavan, learned Counsel for the
applicant, Smt. J. S. Lohokare learned APP for the State and Ms.
Roshni M. Thakkar, for the original complainant.

¶20

4. The applicant was protected by way of interim order
since June 2019.

¶21

5. Learned APP, on instructions, states that the applicant
has co-operated with the investigation. This Court (Coram : Revati

¶22

3 / 4 1 ABA 249-2019.odt
Mohite-Dere, J.) vide Order dated 20th March 2020 had recorded
that the applicant had undertaken to deposit Rs.2,91,00,000/-
between 15th April 2020 to 15th May 2020. It was noted in that
order that, the learned Senior Counsel for the intervener stated on
instructions, that the intervener would have no objection for
having the proceeding quashed against the applicant, in the event,
the applicant deposited the amounts mentioned in that order.
Today, Affidavits are filed on behalf of the applicant as well as on
behalf of the intervener. Both the Affidavits are taken on record.

¶23

6. In the affidavit, the applicant has stated that, he had
deposited Rs.2,91,00,000/- between April 2020 to December
2020. He submitted that the schedule was extended by previous
orders of this Court.

¶24

7. This factual aspect is not controverted in the Affidavit
filed by the intervener. The intervener has accepted the payment of
such amount.

¶25

8. In view of this development, the applicant has
sufficiently established his bonafides. He has complied with the
directions mentioned in the Order dated 20th March 2020. The

¶26

4 / 4 1 ABA 249-2019.odt

¶27

dispute is strictly private between the parties.

¶28

9. In this view of the matter, the custodial interrogation of

¶29

the applicant is not necessary. He can be protected by an order of
anticipatory bail.

¶30

10. Hence, the following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.186/2018 2018 registered at Warje-
Malwadi Police Station, Dist: Pune, the applicant
is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two
sureties in the like amount.

¶33

(ii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Kalyanrao Jagannath Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyanrao Jagannath Jadhav 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

Rajendra Vasant Dhaigude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salimunisa Asif Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Krushnappa Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya (Raju) Ravindra Hande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Gyanba Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akash Sunil Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra