Allowed

Ravi Balavantrai Mehta v. Kalpesh Naresh Pandya and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2022IA/445/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the court allowed the withdrawal of a bail deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- paid by the accused. The accused, originally granted anticipatory bail for alleged misappropriation of company funds, was not represented despite being served. The court permitted withdrawal contingent on an undertaking to return the amount with accrued interest if required.

What did the court decide?

Application to withdraw the bail deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- allowed on undertaking to deposit amount with accrued interest if directed by court.

Ravi Balavantrai Mehta Vs Kalpesh Naresh Pandya and Anr. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

19.ia.445-22.doc

¶2

PMB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2022.12.06 18:52:12 +0530

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2022 IN

¶6

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1390 OF 2019

¶7

RAVI BALAVANTRAI MEHTA ..APPLICANT VS. KALPESH NARESH PANDYA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Amit A. Gharte for applicant/original complainant. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for State.

¶9

Dighe, PSI, L. T. Marg Police Station.

¶10

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶11

DATE : DECEMBER 6, 2022.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the original complainant.

¶14

2. This is an application filed by the original complainant

¶15

in the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the accusedKalpesh Naresh Pandya, which was disposed of by this Court

¶16

by an order dated 23/07/2019 after recording an undertaking that an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- will be deposited by Kalpesh Naresh Pandya, respondent no.1 herein. Accordingly, an amount of RS.16,00,000/- was

¶17

¶18

19.ia.445-22.doc

¶19

deposited by the accused. This is an application for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- by the complainant. The respondent No.1 herein i.e. Kalpesh is not present, though he has been duly served. The case relates to the allegation made by the complainant that Kalpesh while working as an Accountant misappropriated the Company’s funds and transferred an amount of Rs.38,22,064/- to his own account from the current account of the complainant’s company under the guise of paying TDS, stamp duty processing charges and salaries of the employees. The amount has been deposited which according to the complainant belongs to them. As the respondent No.1 is not represented though he is duly served, having regard to the reasons mentioned in the application, the application deserves to be allowed.

¶20

3. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the undertaking to be filed before this Court that in the event the complainant is directed to return back the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- along with accrued interest, the same will be deposited forthwith. Let the undertaking be

¶21

¶22

19.ia.445-22.doc

¶23

filed before the amount is withdrawn, whereafter, the applicant will be permitted to withdraw the said amount.

¶24

4. The interim application is disposed of.

¶25

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶26

Ravi Balavantrai Mehta v. Kalpesh Naresh Pandya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Balavantrai Mehta v. Kalpesh Naresh Pandya and Anr.

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

Rajiv Raudi Das Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aasama Mushraf Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra

Praful Prakash Parab Vs State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Prabhakar Bedre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjit Laxman Tanpure Vs Intelligence Officer and Anr.

Ravindra Prabhakar Berde Vs State of Maharashtra