Allowed

Gaurav Dinesh Soni v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Feb 2021BA/882/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was heard considering the applicant's custody since 2019 and the over investigation. The court noted anticipatory bail for main accused and the civil dispute nature, securing the property to prevent misuse, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties and must attend the concerned Police Station every fortnight for one year.

Gaurav Dinesh Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

14-BA-882-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 882 OF 2020

¶4

Gaurav Dinesh Soni .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, for the applicant. Smt. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent. PN 7610 and PC 8938 Swargate Police Station, Pune present.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :8^th FEBRUARY 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

The applicant is seeking his release on bail in connection with C.R. No. 429 of 2018 registered at Swargate Police Station, Pune, under Sections 406,409,415,420,423,504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

Heard Mr. Satyavrat Joshi , learned Counsel for

¶10

the applicant and Smt. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

y.s.patil

1 of 6

14-BA-882-2020.odt

The applicant is in custody since 01/11/2019. The investigation is over and charge-sheet is fled.

¶15

The FIR is lodged by one Rajesh Mohanlal Rathod. He has stated in his FIR that he is in the business of supplying building materials. In 2015, the informant’s son Darsh introduced him to the main accused Nikhil Kankulole. The said accused requested the informant to supply material on credit. He told the informant that they could have somebody who stood as a guarantor in these transactions. The informant went to Nikhil’s house. One Pramod Nahar took the responsibility of that transaction. The informant provided material worth Rs. 3 crores 50 lakhs between April and July 2015. Nikhil paid some amount but the amount of Rs. 2 crores 50 lakhs was outstanding. Nikhil’s uncle Pramod Nahar and Nikhil did not repay that amount inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the informant. Nikhil told the informant that he had sold the material to the present

y.s.patil

2 of 6

14-BA-882-2020.odt

applicant. The informant met the present applicant. The applicant, in turn, told the informant that he had sold the material to one Nitin Karia and Samidh Karia. He also assured the informant that as soon as he received the payment, he would pay the informant. The informant waited for some period but since he did not get his money, he gave complaint frstly to the Commissioner of Police on 24/05/2016. Thereafter, the applicant and Nikhil entered into an MOU with the informant on 14/06/2016. The applicant and Nikhil had accepted that the outstanding amount would be paid to the informant by 21/07/2017 with 24% interest. However, even this MOU was not honoured and therefore the informant lodged this FIR.

¶20

Shri Joshi learned Counsel for the applicant,

¶21

relied on two orders passed by the Sessions Court granting anticipatory bail to Pramod Nahar and Nikhil Kunkulol. He submitted that they were the persons who had frst induced the informant to part with the money. If

y.s.patil

3 of 6

14-BA-882-2020.odt

they are granted protection of anticipatory bail, there was no reason as to why the applicant should be denied relief of bail. He claimed parity on behalf of the applicant. He submitted that in any case, it was a civil dispute for which an MOU was already entered into. The informant had an option of getting orders from Civil Court in compliance with that MOU.

¶26

Learned APP submitted that the applicant has purchased a fat from the amount which he derived through this transaction. She further submitted that the investigating agency has informed the Sub Registrar not to permit transfer of that property.

¶27

I have considered all these submissions. As rightly pointed out by Shri Joshi, the other two main accused whose role are even more serious than the present applicant, are protected by orders of anticipatory bail passed by the Sessions Court. Applicant’s role is lesser. The applicant at the frst instance had not made

y.s.patil

4 of 6

14-BA-882-2020.odt

any representation directly to the frst informant.

¶32

The allegations that applicant has benefted

¶33

from the transaction and has purchased a fat through this ill gotten wealth, is taken care of by the investigating agency by prohibiting further transaction of that property. Thus the property is secured. The applicant is in custody since 1/11/2019. His further custody for investigation purpose is not necessary. The trial is likely to take a long time even to commence. There are antecedents against the present applicant of similar nature. Therefore, some conditions are required to be imposed on the applicant. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

¶34

Hence, the following order :

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(i) In connection with C.R. No.429 of 2018, registered with Swargate Police Station, Pune, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his

y.s.patil

5 of 6

14-BA-882-2020.odt

furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶41

(ii)

¶42

The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station every fortnight for a period of one year from today.

¶43

(iii) It is clarifed that this order will be restricted to C.R. No. 429 of 2018, registered with Swargate Police Station, Pune and it shall not afect other proceedings against the present applicant.

¶44

(iv) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶46

y.s.patil

¶47

6 of 6

Gaurav Dinesh Soni v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Dinesh Soni 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuchya @ Vishal Anantya @ Popat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhaysinh Rajendra Kaldhone Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zahid Ahmed Khurshid Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sufiya Maksud Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bablu@ Avinash Anil Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Sanjay Keripale Vs the State of Maharashtra