Priyanka Chandrakant Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

910-aba1003-2023-modified.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1003 OF 2023

¶5

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed byATUL GANESHKULKARNI Date: 2023.07.1917:25:51 +0530

¶6

Priyanka Chandrakant Thakur… Applicant
V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.… Respondents

¶8

Mr. Santosh S. Musale i/by Mr. Tanaji Solankar for the
applicant.

¶9

Mr. Pandurang H. Gaikwad, APP for respondent No.1/
State.

¶10

Mr. Rahul Gaikwad with Mr. Aman Jhawar and Ms.
Garima Joshi i/by Gravitas Legal for respondent No.2/
first informant.

¶11

A.D. Gije, API, Uran Police Station, is present.

¶12

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶13

DATED:JULY 6, 2023

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1.Apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.217 of 2022
registered with Uran Police Station, Raigad for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the applicant is seeking relief of pre-
arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.

¶16

2.According to prosecution, one Pushpa Bhadrakumar Savjani
lodged a report alleging that she and her husband Bhadraumar
Jamnadas Savjani are the owners of property bearing Survey

¶17

1

¶18

910-aba1003-2023-modified.doc

¶19

Nos.108/1/A, 71/6 and 69/4/A ad-measuring 16 acres. In 2022, it
was revealed that Survey No.71/6 has been sold by sale deed
dated 17 May 2022. Her deceased husband is one of the executant
of the sale deed. Property was sold for consideration of
Rs.34,75,000/-. The applicant is the person who alleged to have
signed as a witness.

¶20

3.The applicant applied seeking anticipatory bail before the
learned Sessions Judge which came to be rejected by order dated
30 December 2022. The applicant, therefore, filed present
anticipatory bail application.

¶21

4.Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is working as an employee with accused No.3. She had
no knowledge of the transaction. She identified executant No.1,
i.e. Bhadrakumar Jamnadas Savjani on the say of her employer,
accused No.3. She has no antecedent to her discredit. She is not
beneficiary of the transaction. She is protected by this Court. She
has cooperated with the investigation. Offence is documentary in
nature and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is
not required.

¶22

5.Having heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned
APP and learned advocate for the victim, it prima facie appears
that the applicant has unambiguously stated in the identification
column of the registered document. She identifies executant of
sale deed. It is not in dispute that executant, Bhadrakumar expired
in the year 2003. The document was executed on 17 May 2022.
The applicant along with another witness certified that she knows

¶23

2

¶24

910-aba1003-2023-modified.doc

¶25

executor of the document and the executor of the document have
signed the document. She has certified that the executant of the
document is the same person. Since she identifies the executant,
the signature appended to the document are of executant of the
document. It is also stated that she has fully responsible for the
identification of the executant. Therefore, prima facie case for the
offences alleged against the applicant is made out.

¶26

6.In so far as the submission of custodial interrogation is
concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep v.
Arun Kumar C.K. & Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1529 was considering grant of bail to an accused charged with an
offence under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. The Apex Court, in paragraph 16, observed as under:

¶27

“16.…In many anticipatory bail matters, we have
noticed one common argument being canvassed that no
custodial interrogation is required and, therefore,
anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a
serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone
would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an
application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many
cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may
not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie
case against the accused should be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an
anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima
facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature
of the offence should be looked into along with the severity
of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the
grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if
custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by

¶28

3

¶29

910-aba1003-2023-modified.doc

¶30

itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”

¶31

7.In that view of the matter, the applicant has failed to make
out a prima facie case for grant of relief under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The anticipatory bail application,
therefore, stands rejected. No costs.

¶32

8.It is made clear that the observations made in the order
dated 6 July 2023 are made only for the purposes of deciding
application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observations while considering the bail application or while
deciding the trial.

¶33

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶34

This order is modified as per order dated 19 July 2023 to insert paragraph 8.

¶35

4

Priyanka Chandrakant Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Chandrakant Thakur 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

Tanaji Kondaji Kandekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Arif Mainuddin Bargir Vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Ramesh Khare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sham Ashok Nikam Vs State of Maharashtra

Jayendra @ Jayesh Damodhar Bhabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Buddhu Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra