Allowed

Vilas Ramdas Shirsat v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2021ABA/494/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving unpaid dues for grapes. The court observed that the applicant had deposited the disputed amount and directed the trial court to allow withdrawal of dues or deal with the funds after the trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a PR bond of Rs.30,000/- and sureties; complainants directed to withdraw dues from trial court or funds to be disbursed after trial.

Vilas Ramdas Shirsat Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

31-ABA-494-21.odt

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.494 OF 2021

¶5

Vilas Ramdas Shirsat.... Applicant
 versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr.Sachin D. Kadam, Advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 23rd MARCH, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶11

with C.R.No.331/2019 registered with Miraj Rural Police
Station, dated 29/06/2019 under sections 406 of the Indian

¶12

Penal Code.

¶13

2. The gist of the FIR lodged by one Ashutosh Annasaheb Chaugule is that, the Applicant had taken grapes from him and

¶14

his adjoining land owner Rajaram Bapu Jagdale and had not

¶15

paid the entire amount. The Applicant had allegedly taken 1480

¶16

Nesarikar

¶17

2 / 4 31-ABA-494-21.odt

¶18

boxes from the informant worth Rs.1,67,000/-. He had paid only
Rs.20,000/-. Rs.1,47,000/- were balance. Similarly, he had taken
1375 boxes worth Rs.1,78,000/- from Rajaram Jagdale and the
Applicant had paid Rs.78,000/- to Rajaram. The balance amount
was Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, total balance was Rs.2,47,000/-. The
contention of the first informant is that this amounts to an
offence punishable u/s 406 of IPC.

¶19

3. Heard Mr.Sachin D. Kadam, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar, learned APP for the
State.

¶20

4. On the last occasion, i.e. on 23/02/2021, learned

¶21

counsel for the Applicant had made a statement that the
Applicant was ready and willing to deposit the amount of
Rs.2,47,000/- before the Court of J.M.F.C. at Miraj, and the
Applicant had no objection if the first informant and Rajaram
Jagdale withdrew their respective dues.

¶22

5. Today, learned counsel Mr.Kadam has tendered a copy

¶23

3 / 4 31-ABA-494-21.odt

¶24

of the receipt showing such payment. Copy is taken on record
and marked ‘X’ for identification. Thus the grievance of the
informant and his friend Rajaram Jagdale is taken care of.
Therefore custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not
necessary.

¶25

6. Hence, the following order :

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.331/2019 registered with Miraj Rural
Police Station, the Applicant is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

¶28

(ii) The learned JMFC shall invest the amount deposited in fixed deposit scheme to be renewed from time to time.

¶29

(iii) The informant and his friend Rajaram Jagdale

¶30

4 / 4 31-ABA-494-21.odt

¶31

are at liberty to withdraw their respective
amounts mentioned in the FIR from the trial
Court.

¶32

(iv) In case, neither of these two withdrew these amounts, learned trial Judge shall pass appropriate order regarding disbursement of this amount as per rules at the conclusion of the trial/proceedings.

¶33

(v) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Vilas Ramdas Shirsat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas Ramdas Shirsat 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

Dilip Narayan Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Malhari Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Mahadeo Gejage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nandkishor Yashwant Karangutkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kailas Jethu Phasale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Husen @ Malang Kasim Bhagoji Vs the State of Maharashtra