Allowed

Surendra Nathamal Lunkad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC15 Oct 2024ABA/1087/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail applications by applicants apprehending arrest in two FIRs alleging forgery in executing a gift deed despite an attachment of the property under recovery proceedings of a co-operative society. Court found no proof the owner knew of the attachment or that property was mortgaged, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 each with one surety in like amount, subject to conditions of police station attendance, no witness contact, no evide

Surendra Nathamal Lunkad and Another Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

927 & 928.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:25107

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

927 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1085 OF 2024

¶5

1. Surendra Nathamal Lunkad

¶6

2. Rupesh Surendra Lunkad

¶7

3. Sejal Surendra Lunkad

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶10

AND

¶11

928 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1087 OF 2024

¶12

1. Surendra Nathamal Lunkad

¶13

2. Rupesh Surendra Lunkad
VERSUS

¶14

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶15

*******

¶16

• Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the Applicants • Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, APP for the Respondents/State *******

¶17

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:OCTOBER 15, 2024

¶18

COMMON ORDER :

¶19

1.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with

¶20

with C.R. No. 84 of 2024 & 83 of 2024 registered with

¶21

Jilhapeth Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471,
201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

2.First informant is the Special Recovery

¶23

Officer of the Jalgaon District Central Credit Co-

Umesh

PAGE 1 OF 5

927 & 928.odt

operative Society. It is the case of the Informant that
Mahavir Urban Credit Society Ltd. Jalgaon had obtained

¶28

loan of Rs. 8 Crores in the year 2002. Present
Applicant No. 1 is one of the Directors of the said
Society. Since there was no repayment of the loan, the
proceedings were initiated under Section 101 of the Co-

¶29

operative Societies Act. A certificate came to be
issued for the recovery of Rs. 17,58,03,383/-. There is
allegation that on 05.02.2021 notice was issued for the
recovery of the said amount. In respect of plot no. 586
order of attachment came to be passed on 25.10.2023 by
the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The
said order of attachment was informed to the concerned
authorities including the Sub-Registrar of Assurances.

¶30

It is alleged that in spite of knowledge of the said
attachment in respect of plot no. 586, Applicant No. 1
has executed gift deed in favour of Applicant Nos. 2
and 3 and thereby has committed breach of trust.

¶31

3.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submit that
admittedly property in question was never mortgaged in
favour of the Bank. He has drawn attention of the Court
to the specific statement made in the applications with

¶32

Umesh PAGE 2 OF 5

¶33

927 & 928.odt

¶34

regard to no notice being served upon him about
attachment of plot no. 586. It is thus his submission
that in absence of any embargo for the Applicant No. 1
to execute any gift deed in the capacity of owner of
property and register the same, no offence is said to
have been committed by him.

¶35

4.Learned APP opposed the applications by
relying upon the panchnama dated 30.10.2023 conducted
by the Special Recovery Officer. This, according to
him, is sufficient notice to the Applicant No. 1 with
regard to attachment of the property in question.

¶36

5.Undeniably, the property in question was never
mortgaged with the Bank. A statement is made by the
Applicant No. 1, who is owner of the property, that he
has not received any notice in respect of the order of
attachment of the said property. Even the record
indicates that the notice issued to Applicant No. 1 was
without referring to the property in question. Though
there is a panchnama drawn on 30.10.2023, however,
there is nothing on record to indicate that Applicant
No. 1 who is the owner was present and that the said
order of attachment was within his knowledge.

Umesh

PAGE 3 OF 5

927 & 928.odt

In absence of the property in question being mortgaged
with the Bank or any evidence to indicate the knowledge
of the Applicant No. 1 about order of attachment, it
cannot be said that any offence is committed by the
Applicant No.1 by transferring the property owned by
him in favour of his son.

¶41

6.This is not the case wherein anything needs to
be recovered from the Applicants. All documents are
part of the record before Sub-Registrar, Assurances.
For the purpose of recovery of any documents,
Applicants be treated as in the custody by the
investigating officer. Applications are allowed. Hence,
the order:

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicants in connection with C.R. Nos. 84 of 2024 & 83 of 2024 registered with Jilhapeth Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each with one surety in the like amount.

¶44

(ii) They shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

PAGE 4 OF 5

Umesh

927 & 928.odt

(iii) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶49

(iv) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶50

(v) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation.

¶51

 (R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶52

PAGE 5 OF 5

¶53

Umesh

Surendra Nathamal Lunkad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Nathamal Lunkad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Pralhadsing Fulsing Usare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Machindra Bansi Jarhad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajendra Ashok Udage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Janardhan Onkar Deo Vs the State of Maharashtra

Madhav Subhash Ogale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sultana Raj @ Rajmohammed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra