Allowed

Ramesh Gulab Chaudhary v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jan 2023ABA/510/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Bombay High Court considers the applicant\'s fear of arrest in a cheating case involving non-existent flats. Finding that a co-accused accepted liability, the court granted bail conditioned on a recognised bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties in the like amount in the event of arrest.

Ramesh Gulab Chaudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

14-ABA-510-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 510 OF 2020

¶3

… Ramesh Gulab Chaudhary Applicant Versus

¶4

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Vinod Chate alongwith Ms. Kalpana Chate of Chate and Associates instructed by Mr. Vaibhav Ugle for the Applicant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 25 JANUARY 2023

¶7

P.C. :-

¶8

. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 87 of 2017 registered at Khandeshwar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 409 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(1), 13(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 and Sections 8, 9, 49 of the Maharashtra Housing Regulation Development Act, 2012.

¶10

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶11

According to the prosecution, the present applicant and other co-accused who are Directors of Tirupati Balaji Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Company cheated the victim/flat purchasers to the tune of

Kanchan P Dhuri

1 / 2

14-ABA-510-2020.odt

Rs.23,07,400/-. It is alleged that land on which the building was to be constructed was not owned by the Company so also no requisite permission to construct the building were obtained. It is alleged that inspite of it the victims were induced to book the flats in the non-existing project.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the coaccused No.1 – Mahendra Sing has accepted the liability of the amount in question. The learned APP has not disputed the said fact.

¶17

Apart from above, it appears that the prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet against the present applicant and other co-accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. In the result, the following order is passed :

¶18

(i) Application is allowed.

¶19

(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant - Ramesh Gulab Chaudhary in Crime No. 87 of 2017 registered at Khandeshwar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 409 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(1), 13(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 and Sections 8, 9, 49 of the Maharashtra Housing Regulation Development Act, 2012, he shall be released on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶20

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN PRASHANT PRASHANT DHURI DHURI Date: 2023.03.23 19:14:30 +0530

¶21

Kanchan P Dhuri

¶22

2 / 2

Ramesh Gulab Chaudhary v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Gulab Chaudhary 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

Khandu @ Khanderao Bhausaheb Shendge Vs State of Maharashtra

Mayuresh Ganesh Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramij Razzak Dange Vs State of Maharashtra

Virendra Shivaji Bhadke Vs State of Maharashtra

Dadabhau Niloba Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra