Allowed

Vijay Harish Bhanushali v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Jul 2021ABA/902/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted anticipatory bail to Vijay Harish Bhanushali, a 5% sleeping partner of a firm, regarding an FIR for cheating. The court held that as he was a minor at the time and not in control of transactions, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and directed release on a PR bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon arrest with a PR bond of Rs.30,000/- and one or two sureties.

Vijay Harish Bhanushali Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

18-ABA-902-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 902 OF 2021

¶4

Vijay Harish Bhanushali .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶5

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 10188 OF 2021

¶6

Haresh Lokumal Jeswani …. Intervenor IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Vijay Harish Bhanushali .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sayaji D. Nangre i/b Sameer Nangre, for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. Bharat Bhatia, for the Intervenor.

¶9

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 7^th JULY, 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No. 389 of 2020 registered at Naupada Police Station, Thane, on 02/12/2020, under y.s.patil 1 of 6

¶12

18-ABA-902-2021.odt

¶13

sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Heard Mr. Sayaji Nangre, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. H.J. Dedhia, learned APP for the State and Mr. Bharat Bhatia, learned counsel for the Intervenor.

¶15

The FIR is lodged by one Haresh Jeswani. He has stated that he wanted to purchase a fat. He came in contact with one Rajkumar Bhatija. Said Rajkumar Bhatija told the informant that he had few fats available for sale. He told the informant that he had purchased a fat bearing No. 700/7 on 7^th foor, A Wing, Shiv Tower, Pachpakhadi, Khopat, Thane. Rajkumar Bhatija had purchased that fat from Vasant Bhanushali and the present applicant; who were the builders of that particular building; on 3/12/2010, through a registered Sale Deed. The informant and his wife met Vasant Bhanushali and the applicant. They told the informant that the building was constructed as per the plan sanctioned by the Thane

y.s.patil

2 of 6

18-ABA-902-2021.odt

Municipal Corporation. They had sold the fat to Rajkumar Bhatija on 3/12/2010. The informant got loan from a bank and in all he paid Rs. 42,21,000/- to the accused. He executed a document with fat owner Rajkumar Bhatija on 07/07/2011 . In the year 2015, the informant received a notice that the fat was unauthorised. The informant realised that he was cheated and then this FIR is lodged.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was only 5% partner of the partnership firm named M/s Shiv Developers. The document of sale was executed by other partner Vasant Bhanushali in favour of Rajkumar Bhatija at the first instance. He submitted that the applicant was not looking after day to day afairs but he was merely a sleeping partner. When the partnership was started, the applicant was only 18 years of age.

¶21

Learned APP submitted that the other accused

y.s.patil

3 of 6

18-ABA-902-2021.odt

Rajkumar Bhatija and Vasant Bhanushali were arrested and were released on bail. He could not seriously disputed that the applicant was only 5% partner of the partnership firm and was not looking after day to day afairs of the partnership firm. Learned APP fairly accepted that the investigation has revealed that the applicant was only 5% partner in the said partnership firm.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the intervenor submitted

¶27

that the informant has lost his money and the applicant was being a partner of partnership firm was equally responsible for commission of the ofence.

¶28

I have considered these submissions. The main accused are Vasant Bhanushali and Rajkumar Bhatija. They are granted bail. The document shows that the first agreement was executed by the co-accused Vasant Bhanushali on behalf of the partnership firm. The applicant was only 5% partner.

4 of 6

y.s.patil

18-ABA-902-2021.odt

As rightly submitted by Shri Nangre, learned Counsel for the applicant that, the applicant was young boy of 18 years at the time when the partnership was started. Therefore, obviously the business was looked after by the other partner Vasant Bhanushali who according to Shri Nangre was the uncle to the present applicant.

¶33

In view of this, there is sufcient scope to believe that the applicant was not in control of the business and was not in control of the transactions of the partnership firm.. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. Other two co-accused are arrested and are released on bail. The investigating Ofcer had sufcient opportunity to investigate into the ofence. The FIR is lodged on 02/12/2020. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

y.s.patil

5 of 6

18-ABA-902-2021.odt

Hence, the following order :

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 389 of 2020 registered with Naupada Police Station, Thane, 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.

¶40

(ii) The Application stands disposed of accordingly. Interim Application No. 10188 of 2021 is also disposed of.

¶41

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶42

y.s.patil

¶43

6 of 6

Vijay Harish Bhanushali v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Harish Bhanushali 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

Kirti Vitthaldas Zaveri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Apnaghar Housing Development and Finance Limited through Nandkishor Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramchandra Wadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shadab Rahim Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mehak Ashok Mirchandani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish Kantilal Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra