Allowed

Sachin Anilkumar Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Oct 2021ABA/735/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two anticipatory bail applications pending before it. The judge confirmed that disputes regarding a government contract had been amicably settled. Consequently, the court made ad-interim bail orders absolute and withdrew the condition requiring the applicants to attend the Economic Offences Wing.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim bail orders for both applications were confirmed and made absolute. The condition to attend the Economic Offences Wing was withdrawn.

Sachin Anilkumar Kamble Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

7-ABA-735 & 610-2021.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 735 OF 2021

¶4

Sachin Anilkumar Kamble...Applicant
Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 610 OF 2021

¶9

Ramasubramanian Sankaran & Ors....Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Mr. Satish Maneshinde, Ms. Anandini Fernandes, Mr. Adhiraj
Malhotra and Ms.Prangana Barua i/b.Bharucha and Partners
for the Applicants in ABA/ 610/2021.

¶14

Ms. Anjali Patil a/w. Mr. Akshay Topiwala for the Applicant in
ABA/735/2021.

¶15

Mrs. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶16

P.I. Dorge, I.O. EOW, Solapur City present in Court.

¶17

Mr. Vishwanath Patil a/w. Mr.Kewal Arya and Mr. Ankit Lodha
for Respondent No.2 in both ABA’s

¶18

Trupti

¶19

1/6

¶20

7-ABA-735 & 610-2021.DOC

¶21

Ms.Snehal Chapalgaonkar, Computer Programmer, Solapur
Municipal Council.

¶22

CORAM:V.G.BISHT, J.
DATE:21st OCTOBER, 2021

¶23

PC:-

¶24

1. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in

¶25

connection with C.R.No. 54 of 2021, registered with Sadar
Bazar Police Station, Solapur, under Sections 120B, 163, 166,
182, 218, 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 43 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.

¶26

2. Informant, Smt. Snehal Sham Chapalgaonkar, was
working in Solapur Municipal Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as “SMC”) as a Computer Programmer. According
to her, SMC had given work order to M/s. Cybertech System
Software Pvt. Ltd. for completing Geographical Information
Survey (hereinafter referred to as “GIS”) survey, preparing
bills for tax collection, receipts, new registration and self
assessment etc. The company was expected to host all these

¶27

Trupti

¶28

2/6

¶29

7-ABA-735 & 610-2021.DOC

¶30

programmes and data on survey of SMC. For the entire work,
the price was fixed at Rs. 5.20 Crores. The present applicants
are connected with the said company. The Applicants in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 610 of 2021 are the
Executive Director, Vice President, Assistant Manager,
employee and Assistant Engineer respectively. Similarly, the
Applicant Sachin Anilkumbar Kamble in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 735 of 2021 was appointed as Nodal Officer.
He was supposed to co-operate with the company and it was
his duty to get the work completed and submit a report to the
officers of SMC.

¶31

3. The prosecution alleges that the company without

¶32

completing the job submitted bills for Rs. 3,83,04,868/-. The
Applicant Sachin Anilkumbar Kamble gave completion
certificate and, therefore, the company paid
Rs. 3,46,07,309/- . However, it was revealed that majority of
the work was still incomplete. The data was not hosted on
SMC’s server and in general the system was not working at
all. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

¶33

Trupti

¶34

3/6

¶35

7-ABA-735 & 610-2021.DOC

¶36

4.Mr. Maneshinde, learned Counsel for the Applicants in
ABA No. 610 of 2021, at the very outset, submits that all the
issues between the parties have been resolved to the
satisfaction of SMC and in such circumstances, there remains
nothing in the matter. The interim protection granted in
favour of the Applicants therefore needs to be confirmed.

¶37

5.Ms. Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant in ABA No.
735 of 2021, supports the submission made by learned
Counsel for the Applicants in ABA No. 610 of 2021.

¶38

6.Mrs. Malhotra, learned APP, on the other hand, fairly

¶39

submits that in view of settlement of issues between the
parties, the prosecution does not need custody of the
Applicants and therefore, an appropriate order may be passed.

¶40

7.The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2-Informant
tenders Affidavits of Respondent No.2, which are taken on
record and marked ‘X’ and ‘X-1’ respectively for identification.

¶41

Trupti

¶42

4/6

¶43

7-ABA-735 & 610-2021.DOC

¶44

8. Perused Affidavits. I have also heard learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 informant.

¶45

9. From the Affidavits, it is clear from paragraph No.6 that a joint meeting of the Corporation and representatives of the Applicant company was held concerning all the 17 issues and all the issues have been resolved. In view of this, this Court may pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice.

¶46

10.Having heard all the parties to the Applications and as
also perusal of the Affidavits, which have been filed today by
learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 informant, it is more
than clear that the differences between the parties in respect
of the contractual work have been amicably and to the
satisfaction of SMC are worked out. Learned APP has also
fairly submitted about non-requirement of the custody of the
Applicants for interrogation purposes. This being so, I am
inclined to allow both the Applications. Hence, the following
order :

¶47

Trupti

¶48

5/6

¶49

7-ABA-735 & 610-2021.DOC

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Applications are allowed.

¶52

ii) The ad-interim protection granted by this Court
on 16th March, 2021 in favour of the Applicant in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 735 of 2021 is
confirmed and made absolute.

¶53

iii) The ad-interim protection granted by this
Court on 15th March, 2021 in favour of the
Applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No.
610 of 2021 is confirmed and made absolute.

¶54

iv)The condition imposed on the Applicants to
attend the office of Economic Offences Wing,
Solapur as and when called and shall co-operate
with the investigation, in the light of submission
of learned APP, is withdrawn.

¶55

v)The Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Digitally signed TRUPTI by TRUPTI SADANAND SADANAND BAMNE BAMNE Date: 2021.10.21 22:32:54 +0530

¶57

 (V.G.BISHT, J. )

¶58

Trupti

¶59

6/6

Sachin Anilkumar Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Anilkumar Kamble 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

Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Drishya Rajiv Chadha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Solankhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramasubramanian Sankaran and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Dattatray Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunanda Shamrao More and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra