Allowed

Prashant Pandurang Aainapure v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Feb 2023BA/314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant, who had been in custody for over three years and ten months pending trial in a cheating case under sections 420/506 IPC and MPID Act. The applicant surrendered, had no anterior criminal record, and provided property as security.

What did the court decide?

The applicant will be released on bail upon furnishing an R Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties in the like amount or cash bail.

Prashant Pandurang Aainapure Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Darshan Patil

¶2

20-ba-314-21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 314 OF 2021

¶5

Prashant Pandurang Aainapure ..Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶6

Veerdhaval Kakade i/b Mrunal Jadhav for the Applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2023

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶11

2. This is an application for bail by the applicantPrashant Pandurang Aainapure in connection with C.R. No.176 of 2018 dated 06/07/2018, registered with Arnala Sagari Police Station, under sections 406, 409, 465, 467, 471, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID” for short).

¶12

3. The First Information Report was registered on 06/07/2018. The applicant was arrested on 06/07/2018. For

¶13

1/4

¶14

Darshan Patil 20-ba-314-21.odt

¶15

the purpose of surgery, the applicant was released on temporary bail on 04/04/2022. Thereafter, the applicant surrendered on 19/11/2022. The applicant is effectively in custody for 3 years and 10 months. The applicant had executed a development agreement with co-accused Mukesh Chaudhary. The accused Amar Raut was to develop the said property. It is alleged that the applicant constructed a building by preparing forged building permissions of Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation. It is alleged that 24 investors have not been given flats in return for consideration received. The total amount invested is about Rs. 88,50,000/- as per the MOU dated 21/11/2018. This MOU is between the applicant’s wife i.e. Prajakta Ainapure and Amit Ohal (informant and power of attorney holder for other aggrieved persons). The applicant’s wife has paid a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/-. The applicant has deposited Rs. 3,05,000/in the trial Court.

¶16

4. Further, an affidavit has been filed on page no. 226. It is indicated in paragraph no. 8a that there is a residential flat in the applicant’s name at the address mentioned therein. The said flat is valued at Rs. 35,00,000/-. The

¶17

2/4

¶18

Darshan Patil 20-ba-314-21.odt

¶19

applicant has stated that there are no encumbrances upon the said property. The applicant undertakes not to create any encumbrances or 3rd party rights on the said property. Learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submits that the applicant has no objection if the MPID special Court proceeds to attach the said property. The statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

¶20

5. The applicant is not a flight risk. While on temporary bail the applicant had surrendered pursuant to the directions of this Court and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has misused this liberty while on temporary bail. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant.

¶21

6. Considering that the applicant is in custody for almost 3 years and 10 months, having regard to the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence which has been alleged and also taken into consideration that the trial is not likely to conclude any time soon as even the charge has not been framed, the applicant can be released on bail. Hence, the following order.

3/4

Darshan Patil

20-ba-314-21.odt

ORDER

(a) Applicant- Prashant Pandurang Aainapure in connection with C.R. No.176 of 2018, registered with Arnala Sagari Police Station, shall be released on bail, on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶27

(b) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of 6 weeks in lieu of surety;

¶28

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence;

¶29

(d) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once a month i.e. on first Monday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m;

¶30

(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

¶31

(f) The applicant to abide by the statement-cumundertaking reflected in this order.

¶32

7. The application is disposed of.

¶33

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶34

4/4

Prashant Pandurang Aainapure v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Pandurang Aainapure 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

Johnny Maksad Biswas @ Moklesur Rehman Vs State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Nagesh Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Shailesh S. Parranshetti Vs State of Maharashtra

Shantabai Dharma Shrikhande Vs State of Maharashtra

Arshad Riyaz Shaikh Alias Madrasi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikrant Dipak Raut Vs State of Maharashtra