Disposed

Nandakumar Krishnakumar Goswami v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 May 2024ABA/1269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Sections 406, 420 IPC over alleged sale of plots already sold to third parties. Applicant undertook to pay ₹35,00,000 from escrow. Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail on a PR bond till next date.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim release on PR bond of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties upon arrest, operative till 3 July 2024; applicant to cooperate with investigation.

Nandakumar Krishnakumar Goswami vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

906 ABA 1269 of 2024

1 of 4

Kishor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1269 OF 2024

¶6

Mr. Nandkumar Goswami ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, a/w. Mr. Rohan Hogle, Mr. Ashishkumar Shrivastav i/b. Mr. Aadesh Konde-Deshmukh for Applicant. Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganpathy, APP for State/Respondent. Mr. Rohan Barge, for Intervener.

¶8

CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 08 MAY 2024

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶11

with C.R.No.47 of 2024 registered at Lonawala Police Station on 11^th February 2024 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ganpathy, learned APP for the State and Mr. Barge for Intervener.

¶13

At the outset learned advocate appearing on behalf of

¶14

2 of 4 906 ABA 1269 of 2024

¶15

Intervener states that he has instructions to file an intervention application on behalf of the Intervener. He seeks time to file intervention application. At his instance I am adjourning the matter, however I have heard the parties for consideration of adinterim relief.

¶16

The gist of the F.I.R. is that Applicant was a Partner of M/s. Taj Enterprises. He sold plot Nos.52, 66 and 67 at Tungarli. The F.I.R. mentioned that for those three plots total amount of ₹46,28,500/- was paid by the informant to the Applicant. However, the plots were occupied by third persons namely Salim Moti and Suryakant Kastur. The applicant had undertaken to remove their encroachment and handover peaceful possession to the informant. The balance amount was to be paid after that. According to the informant, he subsequently came to know that Suryakant Kastur has filed Special Civil Suit No.13 of 2023 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wadgaon Maval. In the above Special Civil Suit No.13 of 2023 the informant and the Applicant were made the Defendants. The informant came to know that Applicant had sold the two plot Nos.52 and 66 in the year

¶17

3 of 4 906 ABA 1269 of 2024

¶18

1979 to Jawahar and Leela Balani. This fact was suppressed by the informant and he was made to part with the aforesaid amount. The other allegations are in respect of the other five plots for which the Applicant had allegedly accepted amount of ₹23,23,123/-. There are no serious allegations in respect of this transaction. There is another allegation that the informant had paid amount of ₹16,90,000/- for stamp duty and he has lost that money as well. On this basis the F.I.R. is lodged.

¶19

Learned counsel for Applicant submitted that out of the disputed amount of ₹46,00,000/- he has already paid ₹11,00,000/- on 15 September 2023. The balance amount of ₹35,00,000/- in respect of plot Nos.52, 66 and 67 is kept in the escrow account of his advocate i.e. Chetan Oswal. The Applicant has filed a written undertaking before the Court stating that the said amount would be transferred in Complainant’s account before three months. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is 78 years of age and due to shortage of time he is filing a written undertaking. Before the next date, he will file proper affidavit in that behalf. Written undertaking is signed by the

¶20

906 ABA 1269 of 2024

¶21

4 of 4

¶22

Applicant and taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. Considering these submissions and the undertaking filed today, the Applicant can be granted ad-interim relief till the next date.

¶23

Hence, the following order :

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 47 of 2024, registered with Lonawala Police Station, Pune Rural on 11^th February 2024, till the next date the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing P. R. bond in the sum of ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶26

ii) The order shall operate till 3^rd July 2024.

¶27

iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶28

iv) Stand over to 3^rd July 2024.

¶29

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶30

Digitally signed KISHOR by KISHORVISHNU VISHNU KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2024.05.10 11:12:26 +0530

Nandakumar Krishnakumar Goswami v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandakumar Krishnakumar Goswami v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sumedh Ranade and Others Vs Saudamini Sumedh Ranade Nee Saudamini Pradeeptanshu Chattopadhyay

Prasad Ramesh Todkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nana @ Dhanaji Rama Shirtode Vs the State of Maharashtra

D and a Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Bay View Chs Limited

The Secretary/Chairman, Bhudargad Taluka Chs Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai

Ravindra Savlaram Gamre vs Hotel King Palace