Dismissed

Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Aug 2023ABA/1291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed two connected anticipatory bail applications. The Court rejected requests for adjournment due to the applicant's lack of seriousness and findbd conduct. Permission to mortgage or lease attached property was revoked after finding that the applicant suppressed the fact that the property was attached in other crimes, deeming the applicant dishonest under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Full trust on the application was dismissed. Permission to mortgage or lease the property was revoked.

Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1-aba-1291-2023.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed byNIKITA NIKITA KAILAS KAILAS DARADE DARADE Date: 2023.08.11 19:21:12 +0530

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1291 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3124 OF 2021

¶6

Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi and Anr. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Akash Gupta i/b Hulyalkar and Associates for the Applicants.

¶8

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

¶9

Mr. Ashok Sharmale, PI, Nashik City.

¶10

Mr. PSI Y.V. Kendre, EOW, Nashik Rural.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

It has been observed that the advocate appearing in the present application is nor serious nor contesting the application. Right from the first order till today, attempt is made either to prolong the matter or statements are made which would prompt this Court to adjourn the matter.

¶14

On 7^th July 2023, none was present for the applicant. It was made clear that there is no interim relief and it shall be open for the Investigating Officer to take action in accordance with law. Again On 4^th August 2023, statement was made to tag the matter along with ABA No.3124 of 2021, that the matter is kept today

¶15

¶16

1-aba-1291-2023.doc

¶17

first on board. A request is made on behalf of the applicant that a purchaser is ready to purchase the property and therefore, adjournment be granted.

¶18

Considering the conduct of the applicant, this is not a fit case where the adjournment should be granted. On overall consideration of the aforesaid facts, no case for grant of adjournment is made out. The learned advocate for the applicant is not serious in contesting the applicant.

¶19

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.

¶20

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3124 OF 2021

¶21

On 3^rd August 2023, this Court pass following order:

¶22

“1. Stand over to 4^th August 2023, second on board

¶23

It is made clear that on the next date request for keeping back the matter or adjournment will not be entertained on any ground.

¶24

Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till 4^th August 2023.”

¶25

On 4^th August 2023, this Court pass following order

¶26

“ 1. To be heard along with Anticipatory Bail Application No.3124 of 2021.”

¶27

On 4^th August 2023, on specific request was made by the advocate appearing for the applicant that the applicant bonafidely intends to pay the amount within one week, if he is granted permission to mortgage sale or leas the property. It was made clear on that date to the advocate appearing for the applicant, that if

¶28

¶29

1-aba-1291-2023.doc

¶30

within one week, the amount is not repayed, this Court shall dismiss the matter.

¶31

On his request, this Court permitted the applicant to sale mortgage or leas the property. The vague statement is made that the applicant has one purchaser willing to purchase attached property. Besides the said statement no details or concrete proposal has been placed before this Court.

¶32

On consideration of the submissions made on the last occasion and overall conduct of the applicant, it appears that the conduct of the applicant is dishonest. That the property is attached in other crimes. This fact was not pointed out to this Court on 4^th August 2023. Attachment of property in other crimes was a material fact which was deliberately suppressed by the applicant. The power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a discretionary power. Such dishonest applicant is not entitled to any relief under Section 438 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973.

¶33

Permission granted in paragraph No.2, by order dated 4^th August 2023, is revoked. The position as regards the status of property as was in existence on 3^rd August 2023, shall remain inforce. It shall be open for the Investigating Officer to take action against the applicant in accordance with law.

¶34

The anticipatory bail applications stands dismissed.

¶35

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶36

Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Ganpatrao Ramod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anthony Anderson Oyemina Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anthony Anderson Oyemina Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikrant Sharad Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dipak Ashok Zanje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepali Rahul Bhilare Vs the State of Maharashtra