Allowed

Kailas Dayanand Punjabi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Sept 2024ABA/1099/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ten applicants sought anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging they abducted a businessman from Mumbai, held him in Nashik and extorted money, cars and property. The court found the witness statement inconsistent with the FIR, the Mantralaya parking claim implausible, and co-accused Rahul already granted bail. Anticipatory bail was granted on PR bonds.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on bail on PR bond of Rs.25,000 each with one or more sureties in like amount, subject to conditions of attendance and non-tampering.

Kailas Dayanand Punjabi and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.12.13 Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx03:06:26+0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Anticipatory Bail Application No.1099 of 2024

¶4

1. Kailas Dayanand Punjabi Age-52 years, Occupation-Business, Res.27/A, Mitrakunj Housing Society, V. Near WS College, Sakri Road, T. Dist. Dhule

¶5

1. Sanket Kiran Ohol Age-36 years Occupation – Business, Res. Room No.1, Opposite Commissioner’s Office Dist. Nashik.

¶6

1. Kiran Kundan Tile Aged-34 years, Occupation-Business Res. Damayanti Bungalow, Old Makhmalabad Naka Gulabnagar, Panchvati, T. Dist. Nahsik.

¶7

1. Girish Tuljaram Pahilajani Aged-34 years, Occupation-Business Res.07, Shubh Lakshmi Society, Jagtap Mala, Behind Bitco College, Nashik Road, Nashik, T. Dst. Nashik

¶8

1. Sainath Santosh Patekar Aged-32 years, Occupation-Driver Res. Savitribai Phule Colony, Bidi Kamgar Nagar, Panchvati, T. Dist. Nashik

¶9

Page 1 of 8

¶10

11 December 2024

¶11

Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx

¶12

1. Mukesh Amrutlal Tulsani Aged-55 years, Occupation-Business Res.2, Jai Ganeshayan Apartment, Big Near Bazar, Dawkhar Wadi, Nashik Road Nashik, Dist. Nashik

¶13

Bhushan Kundan Tile Aged-37 years, Occupation-Business Res. Damayanti Chawl, Old Makhmalabad Naka, Gulabnagar, Panchvati, Dist. Nashik.

¶14

Santosh Dyanand Punjabi Aged-36 years, Occupation-Business Res.Plot No.58, Mitrakunj Housing Society, V. Near WS College, Sakri Road, Taluka-District-Dhule.

¶15

1. Rohit Anil Pawar

¶16

Aged-34 years, Occupation-Business House No.383/B, Laxmi Narayan Road, Bhagur, Dist. Nashik.

¶17

Izaj Sahjor Patel Age-40 years, Occ: Site Supervisor, Res. Ashoka Marg, Taluka District-Nashik … Applicants

¶18

Versus

¶19

1. The State of Maharashtra (To be served through the

¶20

Office of Learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai.

¶21

Page 2 of 8

¶22

11 December 2024

¶23

Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx

¶24

Chandan Kumar Berd Age: 43, Occ.: Business, R/at Sunrise Point, SF/04/3C Rajrahat Town, Kolkata-700156 … Respondents

¶25

Mr Pratik Kalantri, a/w. Mr Shyam Badode, Mr Anand Khairnar and Mr Prabhakar Shinde, for the applicants. Mr MG Patil, APP, for respondent No.1/ State. Mr Rakesh Singh, i/b. KR Tiwari, for the intervenor. API Sameer Mulani, Airport Police Station, Mumbai.

¶26

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 11 December 2024.

¶27

P.C.:

¶28

By this application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.29 of 2024, registered at Airport Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 364-A, 386, 387, 394, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

According to the prosecution, the first informant runs a business under the company Envolta, which specialises in radioactive materials. The informant had business dealings in Kolkata. Co-accused Rahul Sawale met the informant to discuss their products having being introduced by Raghveer Sandhu, the Vice-President of Envolta. Rahul proposed a land transaction requiring an investment of Rs.4 Crores, where he

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

11 December 2024

¶32

Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx

¶33

was to contribute Rs.3 Crores, and the informant was asked to arrange Rs.1 Crore. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 16 January 2024, the informant travelled to Mumbai, where coaccused and his associate Kailash Punjabi received him at the Airport. They departed from Vile Parle, but during the journey, to unidentified individuals entered the car under some pretext. One of them brandished a revolver at the informant, forcibly taking him to Nashik. Based on the accused’s conversation, the informant learned he was taken to a bunglow in Nashik around 11:00 p.m. the same day. Shortly afterward, the informant’s associate, Raghveer, was also brought to the bunglow. Both were assaulted by the accused and Rahul demanded Rs.50 Crores for their release. The next morning, the accused reduced their demand to Rs.5 Crores, along with property worth Rs.10 Cores and four cars. Rahul coerced the informant to execute documents and forced him to arrange payments with the help of his employees in Kolkata. A sum of Rs.17,53,000/- was

¶34

It is further alleged that in the FIR that on 16 January 2024, the informant came to Mumbai and contacted co-accused Rahul and his friend Kailash Punjabi came to the Airport to receive the informant. They proceeded from Vile Parle. On the way, on some pretext, they got down and two unknown persons entered the car. One of those unknown persons,

¶35

Page 4 of 8

¶36

11 December 2024

¶37

Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx

¶38

pointed a revolver towards the informant and forcibly took him to Nashik. From the conversation between the accused, the informant came to know that he was taken to Nashik and was kept in a bunglow. It was around 11:00 p.m. on 16 January 2024. After some time, the informant’s associate Raghveer was also brought there. The informant and Raghveer were assaulted by the accused. Rahul was demanding Rs.50 Crores for leaving the informant and the accused were recording the assault on their mobile phone. The accused also assaulted them on the next day morning. Ultimately, the demand was reduced to Rs.5 Crores along with the property worth Rs.10 Crores and four cars. Rahul asked the informant to execute documents in that behalf. The informant was forced to pay some money with the help of his employees in Kolkata. An amount of Rs.17,53,000/was transferred to Rahul’s firm’s account through the credit card.

¶39

On the evening of 18 January 2024, the informant and his associate Raghveer were moved to Hotel Surya, where their signatures were obtained on the Memorandum of Understanding. On 19 January 2024, four cars and cash arranged by the informant were delivered to a nearby city. Subsequently, the informant travelled to Mumbai in the same car used to transport him to Nashik. After meeting his

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

11 December 2024

¶42

Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx

¶43

employee Shankar and signing some cheques for Rahul, the informant returned to Kolkata, where he lodged an FIR and later transferred to Airport Police Station in Mumbai.

¶44

Mr Pratik Kalantri, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present crime. The applicants have no prior acquaintance with the informant. The informant and his associate have been engaged in fraudulent activities since long. The applicants deny having any transactions with the informant, and the allegations made against them are implausible. Furthermore, the statements of the other alleged victims, Jaydeep and Raghveer, are inconsistent with the claims outlined in the FIR.

¶45

Mr MG Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, submits that the offence is of a grave and serious nature. The weapon allegedly used in the crime has not yet been recovered. However, the learned APP acknowledges that the investigation has been completed, except for the recovery of the weapon involved in the offence.

¶46

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records.

¶47

Page 6 of 8

¶48

11 December 2024

¶49

Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx

¶50

The statement of Jaydeep indicates that on 17 January 2024, he was called to Nashik by co-accused Rahul. He observed the informant engaged in a discussion at a bunglow. The following day, Jaydeep returned to the bunglow, where the informant, Rahul and Raghveer were having another discussion. Later, they all proceeded to hotel Surya. Jaydeep further described the execution of the MOU, noting that the informant requested an English translated copy of the document. Subsequently, they visited the Court where the MOU was notarised, after which they returned to hotel Surya and stayed until the next day. Jaydeep also noted that the informant and the applicant interacted cordially and even planned to visit a temple together. This version is contrary to the the allegations made in the FIR. Furthermore, the informant’s claim that he was kept in the car at the Mantralaya parking area on 16 January 2024, is deemed implausible due to the heavy police presence in the area. It is equally difficult to believe that the informant would voluntarily sit in a car with unknown individuals without objection. Furthermore,coaccused, Rahul, has already been granted bail.

¶51

In light of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms :

¶52

Page 7 of 8

¶53

11 December 2024

¶54

Chitra Sonawane. 8.aba1099-24.docx

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) In the event of the applicants’ arrest in connection with CR No.29 of 2024, registered at Airport Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai, they shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- each and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶57

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

¶58

(iii) The applicants, themselves or through any other person, shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶59

10. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶60

[ R.N. Laddha, J. ]

¶61

Page 8 of 8

¶62

11 December 2024

Kailas Dayanand Punjabi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailas Dayanand Punjabi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nisha Ghosh vs Shahzad Rabbani Shaikh

Bharati Anand Kuvelkar vs State of Maharashtra

Mandar Ashok Tari vs the State of Maharashtra

Mehajabin Fatima Mohammad Mustafa Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Chandan Kumar Bera vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sangita Pradip Patil vs Mamata Mangesh Jadhav