Soumy Abrata Roy and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

Soumy Abrata Roy and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application dismissed as against applicant No.1 (Soumyabrata Roy). As regards applicant No.2 (Tapobrata Roy), the application is to be listed for further consideration on 25.10.2024 at the top of the supplementary list, and the interim order shall continue to operate only insofar as applicant No.2 is concerned till the next date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail application of applicant No.1 (Soumyabrata Roy) deserves to be dismissed because he made no payment whatsoever in terms of the schedule in his affidavit, thereby misusing the liberty granted by the Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Interim relief had been granted in favour of the applicants on the basis of their voluntary statements and specific affidavits taken on record; applicant No.1, having failed to pay in terms of the schedule in his affidavit (not even a single penny), has completely misused the liberty granted by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

On this ground alone (complete default in payment despite the affidavit undertaking), the anticipatory bail application deserved dismissal as against applicant No.1, and it accordingly stands dismissed insofar as he is concerned.

Key takeaways

Since applicant No.2 (Tapobrata Roy) partly complied with the undertakings given in his affidavit — having paid Rs.2,47,000/- of the Rs.3,80,000/- he undertook to pay, a receipt conceded by the first informant — the Court was inclined to show indulgence towards him.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application, Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), single member bench (Manish Pitale, J.), decided 23.10.2024. Interim anti-arrest relief earlier granted (order dated 30.04.2024, Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) had been anchored to the applicants' affidavits undertaking payment of specified sums to the first informant (total due Rs.6,20,000/-; schedules ending 07.08.2024). At the resumed hearing, applicant No.1 (Soumyabrata Roy) had paid nothing under his Rs.1,60,000/- schedule; the Court held that he had completely misused the liberty granted on the faith of his affidavit and dismissed his application on that ground alone. Applicant No.2 (Tapobrata Roy), having partly complied (Rs.2,47,000/- of Rs.3,80,000/- paid, conceded by the informant), was shown indulgence: his application was ordered to be listed for further consideration on 25.10.2024 (top of supplementary list) with the interim order continuing to operate only in respect of him till the next date. No statute or precedent case was cited.

918_ABA1200_24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1200 OF 2024

Soumyabrata Roy

Tapobrata Roy … Applicants Vs.

State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents

Ms. Neha Bhavsar i/b. Mr. Adityaraj A. Chavan for Applicants. Ms. R. V. Newton, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Chetan Patil i/b. Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2024

P.C. :

. Heard Ms. Bhavsar, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms.Newton, learned APP for the respondent-State, as also Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the first informant.

On 30.04.2024, this Court (Coram: Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) passed an order in the instant application, recording that the applicants were ready to explore the possibility of the settlement as the amount due to the informant was Rs.6,20,000/-. In that light, directions were issued to add the first informant as party respondent and it was directed that till the next date, the applicants would not be arrested.

Thereafter, the application came up for consideration on 09.05.2024, when two separate affidavits were tendered on behalf of the applicant Nos.1 and 2. The said affidavits were taken on record. The applicants in the said affidavits gave undertakings to pay specific amounts to the first informant. They provided a specific schedule for payment of such amounts. The applicant No.1 was to pay total amount of Rs.1,60,000/- on different dates on or before 07.08.2024, and the

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signed byMINAL SANDIPPARABDate: 2024.10.2317:55:10 +0530

1/3

918_ABA1200_24.doc

applicant No.2 was similarly required to pay as per the affidavit, total amount of Rs.3,80,000/- on different dates till 07.08.2024. In the light of the said affidavits being taken on record, interim relief was granted in favour of the applicants.

Today when the application was called out for hearing, initially a prayer was made for adjournment, but when the same was vehemently opposed by the learned APP as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first informant, the application was kept back for appropriate instructions to be taken by the learned counsel for the applicants.

On instructions, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that while the applicant No.1 has not paid any amount despite the aforesaid affidavit placed before this Court, the applicant No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.2,47,000/-, out of total amount of Rs.3,80,000/- that the said applicant was supposed to pay in terms of his affidavit.

It is to be noted that interim relief was granted in favour of the applicants in the light of voluntary statements made on their behalf as also specific affidavits tendered on their behalf, which were taken on record. The applicant No.1 has completely misused the liberty granted by this Court on the basis of statements made in the said affidavit. He has failed to pay in terms of the schedule specified in the affidavit (not even a single penny has been paid). Therefore, insofar as the applicant No.1 - Soumyabrata Roy is concerned, on this ground alone, the application deserves to be dismissed as against him.

As regards the applicant No.2 - Tapobrata Roy, even the first informant concedes that an amount of Rs.2,47,000/- has been received after the affidavit was tendered on behalf of the said applicant before this Court, but the balance amount has not been paid.

2/3

918_ABA1200_24.doc

Considering the fact that the applicant No.2 has partly complied with the undertakings given in the said affidavit, this Court is inclined to show indulgence insofar as the said applicant is concerned.

In view of the above, the application, insofar as the applicant No.1 is concerned, stands dismissed.

As regards, the applicant No.2, the application shall be listed for further consideration on 25.10.2024 at the top of the supplementary list.

The interim order, only insofar as the applicant No.2 is concerned, shall continue to operate till the next date.

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab

3/3