Allowed

Vishal Ashok Pendharkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jun 2023ABA/1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court confirmed interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to applicants accused of cheating under IPC §§420, 465-471, 120-B. Finding charges sheet imminent and no case for custodial interrogation, the court held essential ingredients of cheating not prima facie made out.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 05/01/2021 confirming interim bail is continued; applicants to appear as required.

Vishal Ashok Pendharkar and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

P.H. Jayani 12 ABA01.2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2021

¶4

1. Vishal Ashok Pendharkar
2. Mr. Ashok Pendharkar …. Applicants

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 462 OF 2021 IN

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2021

¶9

Mr. Shyam Behari Verma

¶10

…. Intervenor

¶11

In the matter between :-
Vishal Ashok Pendharkar and anr. …. Applicants
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶12

Mr. Vivek Babar i/b. Mr. Viral Babar for the Applicants.
Ms. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State.
Mr. Ashraf Kapoor i/b. Mohammad Z. Khan for the Intervenor.

¶13

CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶14

DATED : 16^th JUNE, 2023.

¶15

P. C. :-

¶16

. The Applicants apprehend their arrest in C.R.No.716/2019

¶17

registered with Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai for offences
punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian

¶18

Penal Code.

¶19

1/3

¶20

P.H. Jayani 12 ABA01.2021.doc

¶21

2.The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by
Shyam Behari Verma. The facts narrated in the FIR indicate that the
Applicants were the co-owners of flat no.2401 situated on the 24th floor
of Maharaja Retreat CHS Ltd., Film City Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai –
400 063. They had sold the said flat to the first informant for sale
consideration of Rs.1,37,00,000/- out of which Rs.80,00,000/- was
paid to the first informant. It is stated that the Applicants had
concealed the fact that the flat was already mortgaged. It is further
stated that the Applicants had thereafter agreed to clear the loan but
did not take any steps in that regard.

¶22

3.It is to be noted that by order dated 05/01/2021, this Court had
granted interim bail to the Applicants. This Court while granting
interim bail to the Applicants, had taken note of the fact that the
registered agreement for sale clearly reveals that the vendors had
disclosed that they had obtained loan from DHFL and that as on the
date of the said agreement, outstanding dues were Rs.1,11,90,006/-.
Hence, prima facie there was no suppression or concealment of the
facts. Essential ingredients of cheating are prima facie not made out.
Learned APP states that pursuant to the order of the interim bail, the

¶23

2/3

¶24

P.H. Jayani 12 ABA01.2021.doc

¶25

Applicants have appeared before the Investigating Officer and that they
had co-operated with the investigation. She further states that the
investigation has been completed and charge sheet will be filed within
10 days. Hence, no case is made out for custodial interrogation. Under
the circumstances, interim protection granted by order dated
05/01/2021, stands confirmed. The Applicants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required and further before the trial
court on each and every date, unless exempted.

¶26

4. Application stands disposed of. Interim Application stands

¶27

disposed of in view of disposal of ABA.

¶28

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶29

3/3

Vishal Ashok Pendharkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Ashok Pendharkar and Ors. 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

Prakash Ramdhyan Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aakanksha Arindam Banerjee Vs State of Maharashtra

Mohsin Zubair Chhapra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Khursid Alam Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Laherilal Karamshi Gajra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shyam Behari Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra