Allowed

Shekhar Subhash Lunawat v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jul 2022ABA/370/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants accused of property fraud. The Court held the dispute was predominantly civil, the 10-year delay in FIR was significant, and cheating was not established, totaling that custody was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Applications for anticipatory bail allowed; interim orders made absolute; direction to cooperate with investigation and not tamper with evidence.

Shekhar Subhash Lunawat Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

14-ABA365-2022+.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2022

¶5

Rajendra Prakashlal Chordiya ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶6

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 370 OF 2022

¶7

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶8

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2022.07.15 10:56:42 +0530

¶9

Shekhar Subhash Lunawat ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶10

Mr. Sanjay Shinde, a/w Anjali Binjola, for the Applicant in both ABAs.

¶11

Mr. Y. Y. Dabke, APP for the State.

¶12

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 12^th JULY, 2022

¶13

ORDER:-

¶14

These applications for pre-arrest bail are preferred in connection with CR No.394/2021, registered with Waivarhe Police Station, Nashik (Rural).

¶15

Smt. Jyoti Kedar (the first informant) lodged a report with the allegations that Vikas Kumavat – accused no.1 was the colleague of her husband Uday Kedar. Accused no.1 represented to the first informant and her husband that he would assist them in acquiring an immovable property at a reasonable price at Nashik. In the year 2011, Plot Nos.36 and

¶16

1/4

¶17

14-ABA365-2022+.DOC

¶18

37 out of the land bearing Gat No.74/2 situated at village Hadola were shown to the first informant. A sum of Rs.9,00,000/- was paid towards part consideration to the applicant Raju Chordiya and Shekhar Subhash Lunawat. A false document purporting to be an Agreement for Sale was executed. The first informant and her husband were assured by the applicant and co-accused that Sale Deed would be executed within a period of six months. Later on, the applicants informed the husband of the first informant that a dispute has arisen in respect of the said land and the conveyance would be executed after the resolution of said dispute. The applicants neither executed the conveyance nor repaid the amount. They started avoiding the first informant. Hence the report.

¶19

When the applications were listed before the Court on 11^th February, 2022 and 14^th February, 2022, while granting interim pre-arrest bail this Court noted the submission that the dispute was predominantly of civil nature. The applicants were directed to cooperate with the investigation. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have cooperated with the investigation and appeared before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶20

2/4

¶21

14-ABA365-2022+.DOC

¶22

I have perused the allegations in the first information report. Evidently, the Agreement for Sale was executed on 18^th July, 2011. The gravamen of indictment against the applicants is that despite accepting a part of the consideration, conveyance could not be executed. The FIR came to be lodged on 24^th November, 2021, well after 10 years of the execution of the alleged Agreement for Sale. The time-lag of more than 10 years cannot be said to be immaterial or inconsequential. Failure to perform a promise by itself does not constitute deception so as to fall within the mischief of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code. The dispute primarily and predominantly appears to be of civil nature.

¶23

Custodial interrogation does not seem to be warranted. A direction to the applicants to cooperate with the investigation would serve the purpose of unhampered investigation.

¶24

Hence, the following order.

¶25

: O R D E R :

¶26

( i ) The applications stand allowed.

¶27

( ii ) The order of interim pre-arrest bail qua Rajendra Prakashlal Chordiya (ABA/365/2022) is made absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶28

3/4

¶29

14-ABA365-2022+.DOC

¶30

( iii ) The order of interim pre-arrest bail qua Shekhar Subhash Lunawat (ABA/370/2022) is made absolute on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶31

( iv ) In addition, the applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and report to the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶32

( v ) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶33

4/4

Shekhar Subhash Lunawat v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhar Subhash Lunawat v. 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

Datturamchandrasa S/O Chidanandasa Vs State of Maharashtra

Mr. Vishal Suresh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Shankarrao Telnade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Raza Rahees Ahmed Vs State of Maharashtra

Pratik @ Monya Sanjay More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Prakashlal Chordiya Vs State of Maharashtra