This is a short order dismissing an application to cancel bail granted to a firm partner accused of misappropriating firm tankers. The Court held the matter is essentially a civil dispute and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
Application for cancellation of bail granted on 21.11.2019 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2023:BHC-AUG:26645
5-ACB-182-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 182 OF 2019
SANJAY S/O. RADHAKISHAN RANA...Applicant
VERSUS
ANIL S/O. JAGANNATH RANA AND ANR...Respondents
...
Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the Applicant.(VC)
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP, for the Respondent – State.
Mr. A. S. Barlota h/f Mr. P. S. Barje, Advocate for the
Respondent No. 1.
...
CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:DECEMBER 18, 2023
PER COURT :
1.This application is filed for cancellation of
bail granted by order dated 21.11.2019 in ABA No.
1927/2019 in connection with Crime No. 107/2019
registered with Daulatabad Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468,
471, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.Applicant is the first informant and partner
of M/s. Rana Saheblal Mannulal a partnership firm
consisting of eight partners who are in the business of
transportation of petroleum products. It is claimed
that the Respondent is one of the partners of the firm
and without seeking any permission from other partners
he has disposed of 15 tankers belonging to firm and
Page 1 of 3
5-ACB-182-2019.odt
thereby caused loss to the extent of 70-80 lacs. First
informant report further shows that on 25.02.2019 as
said thing noticed by the informant, he immediately
went to the spot where tankers were parked and it was
informed to him that said tankers were purchased by co-
accused herein.
3.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that
informant had never consented the Respondent for
disposal of the tankers standing in the name of firm
nor any power of attorney was given by him. He further
submits that for the purpose of recovery of those
tankers, custodial interrogation of the Respondent
would be necessary. He also claims that the proceeds of
the said sale is with the Respondent. Hence, on these
grounds he seeks cancellation of bail.
4.Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the
application by contending that apparently it is civil
dispute and over above this fact, suit filed by the
Applicant against Respondent is already dismissed. He
also drew attention of the Court to the ‘C’ summary
filed by the police in connection with present crime.
In response thereto, learned Counsel for the
Page 2 of 3
5-ACB-182-2019.odt
Applicant claims that he has not received any notice in
respect of same.
5.Prima facie perusal of the FIR indicates that
it is a case of dispute between the partners in respect
of conducting of the business as well as disposal of
the properties of the firm. Order passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail refers
this to be prima facie civil dispute. This Court does
not find any fault in the findings of learned
Additional Sessions Judge. Submission of learned
Counsel for the Applicant that for the purpose of
recovery of tankers the custodial interrogation of the
Respondent is necessary does not become acceptable in
view of the statement in FIR wherein it is claimed that
those tankers are sold by the Respondents to co-
accused. Thus, custodial interrogation of the
Respondent is not necessary. On both counts, there is
no substance in the application.
6.In view of above, application stands
dismissed.
Malani
Page 3 of 3
Sanjay S/o. Radhakashan Rana
Anil S/o. Jagannath Rana
State
R.M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court