Quashed

Ravindra Baburao Patil and Ors. v. Suresh Bhagwan Patel and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2021IA/1064/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court vacated interim anticipatory bail protection granted to applicants in C.R. No. 333 of 2019 due to their failure to comply with the undertaking to pay the fraud amount, non-attendance at the police station, and disregard of previous court directions. The matter was disposed of by canceling the bail order.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail protection granted earlier to the original applicants was vacated and the applications were disposed of accordingly.

Ravindra Baburao Patil and Ors. Vs Suresh Bhagwan Patel and… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 : 1 : 29-ia-1064 & 938-20.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1064 OF 2020

¶4

IN

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2470 OF 2019

¶6

Ravindra Baburao Patil & Ors..... Applicants
 Versus
Suresh Bhagwan Patel & Ors..... Respondents

¶7

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 938 OF 2020
IN

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2470 OF 2019

¶9

Ashok S. Patil & Ors..... Applicants
 Versus
Suresh Bhagwan Patel & Ors..... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ajay Laxman Bhise for Applicants in both I.As.
Ms. Yashasvita Apte i/b. Harshawardhan Salgaonkar for Original
applicant in ABA/2470/2019.

¶11

Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for State/Respondent.

¶12

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 08th JULY, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1.The original applicants in ABA No.2470 of 2019 had
approached this court for anticipatory bail in connection with

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

Gokhale

¶17

 : 2 : 29-ia-1064 & 938-20.odt

¶18

C.R.No.333 of 2019 registered at Khadakpada police station, under
section 406 and 420 r/w. 34 of the IPC. At the first instance, the
applicants were protected by this court (Coram: Sandeep K.
Shinde, J.) vide order dated 20/11/2019. This order was passed
on the undertaking filed by the original applicants that, they would
pay the amount of Rs.47,27,360/- mentioned in the F.I.R. to the
complainants listed in the F.I.R. by Demand Draft. Thereafter the
matter was adjourned from time to time.

¶19

2.Vide order dated 11/02/2021, this court (Coram:
Prakash D. Naik, J.) had extended the period for making the
payment as per the undertaking by the period of one and half
month from 11/02/2021. By the same order the applicants were
directed to appear before the investigating officer to provide him
details of other aggrieved persons.

¶20

3.Vide order dated 01/04/2021 passed by this court
(Coram: Prakash D. Naik, J.) it was noted that the balance amount
of Rs.13,77,360/- would be paid within two weeks from

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

 : 3 : 29-ia-1064 & 938-20.odt

¶23

01/04/2021. This time was extended by a period of two weeks
more from 23/04/2021. Thereafter, there was no compliance of
the undertaking given before the court. There was breach of
directions issued by this court. Learned counsel for the intervenor
pointed out that the applicants have not paid any further amount
since April and have not sought extension of time to pay such
amount.

¶24

4.Learned APP submitted that the applicants have not
attended the police station pursuant to the directions given by this
court on 11/02/2021 and they have not given the list of aggrieved
persons. Learned APP submitted that, during the course of
investigation it is transpired that, apart from 20 victims mentioned
in the F.I.R. there are 30 other victims and the total amount of
fraud is to the tune of Rs.1,30,33,274/-.

¶25

5.Thus, it appears that the applicants are neither co-
operating with the investigation, nor complying with their own
undertaking, nor following the directions issued by this court and

¶26

3 of 4

¶27

 : 4 : 29-ia-1064 & 938-20.odt

¶28

simply prolonging the matter. In this view of the matter, the
interim order granted earlier cannot be continued any further.

¶29

6.Hence, interim protection granted to the original
applicants stands vacated.

¶30

7.The applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶32

4 of 4

Ravindra Baburao Patil and Ors. v. Suresh Bhagwan Patel and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Baburao Patil and Ors. v. Suresh Bhagwan Patel and Ors.

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

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

Dattatray Mukund Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok S. Patil and Ors. Vs Suresh Bhagwan Patel and Ors.

Nagesh Pandurang Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra