Partly allowed

Suhas Radhakrishna Lohokare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Jul 2021WP/2499/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court amended the conditions for lifting an attachment on the petitioner's bank accounts. The court relaxed the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee, directing the petitioner instead to execute an indemnity bond and provide two solvent sureties.

What did the court decide?

Replaced the requirement to furnish a bank guarantee with an indemnity bond and two solvent sureties.

Suhas Radhakrishna Lohokare Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

30-wp-2499-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2499 OF 2021

¶4

Suhas Radhakrishna Lohokare ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b Mr. Darshan J. Juikar for the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. S. S. Hulke, A.P.P for the Respondent–State

¶7

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. (THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING) MONDAY, 26th JULY 2021

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of

¶11

the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned APP waives service on behalf of respondent–State.

¶12

3 By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following substantial

prayer :

1/4

30-wp-2499-2021.doc

“(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the condition imposed of furnishing Bank Guarantee vide order dated 15^th March 2021 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 47^th Court, at Esplanade, Mumbai.”

¶17

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the

¶18

trial Court vide order dated 15^th March 2021 defreezed the three accounts of the petitioner, the learned Judge imposed a condition that the petitioner be directed to furnish the bank guarantee of the amount which is lying in the said bank accounts as on the date of the said order i.e. a bank guarantee of about Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-five lakhs). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is aged 70 years and he needs to operate the said bank accounts, a he needs the money for his day-to-day needs/illness. He submits that the petitioner as well as his wife are completely dependent on the said savings. He further submits that all the monies in the aforesaid three accounts are generated from salary, bonus and consultancy income received by the petitioner and there is nothing to show that any monies were deposited by the National Peroxide Ltd. and that any defalcated amount by the said company was transferred in the petitioner's accounts.

¶19

2/4

¶20

30-wp-2499-2021.doc

¶21

5 Learned A.P.P is also unable to show that any defalcated amounts were transferred by National Peroxide Ltd. into the petitioner's accounts. The only submission of the learned A.P.P is that the petitioner had not withdrawn the amounts in the said accounts for his personal use during the period 2008 to 2017.

¶22

6 Perused the papers. The trial Court vide order dated 15^th March 2021 had allowed the petitioner's application of defreezing the bank accounts i.e. (i) Account No. 00121000038256 with HDFC Bank, Prabhadevi Branch, Mumbai; (ii) Account No. 03830100004371 with Bank of Baroda, Karvenagar Branch, Pune and (iii) Account No. 012204201980971 with Cosmos Bank, Dadar Branch, Mumbai. Whilst defreezing the said accounts, the learned Judge has observed in para 9 of the said order that the Investigating Officer has not specifically stated that the amounts in the bank accounts are proceeds from crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to give an indemnity bond for the said amount as well as is ready to furnish 2 solvent sureties for the said amount i.e. Rs. 45,00,000/-.

¶23

7 In view of the aforesaid, the condition imposed by the trial Court while defreezing the 3 accounts of the petitioner, is modified/relaxed.

¶24

3/4

¶25

30-wp-2499-2021.doc

¶26

The petitioner shall, instead of furnishing bank guarantee for the amounts mentioned in the aforesaid three accounts, shall now give an indemnity bond for the said amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- and shall also furnish 2 solvent sureties for the said amount lying in the three accounts.

¶27

8 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

9 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶29

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶30

4/4

Suhas Radhakrishna Lohokare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas Radhakrishna Lohokare 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

Sampat Namdeo Ghorpade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meenakshi Menon Vs Punita Toraskar and Ors.

Karan Santosh Imale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afzal Haji Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Imran Firoz Mirza @ Irani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Vasant Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra