Dismissed

Kunal @ Balasaheb Kondiba Amale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 May 2024ABA/1366/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging he directed co-accused to vandalise an informant's office and threaten him to withdraw a Section 138 NI Act cheque complaint. The court found sufficient material implicating the applicant, held custodial interrogation necessary, and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kunal @ Balasaheb Kondiba Amale vs State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

924-aba-1366-2024.doc

¶3

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.07.2521:02:17+0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1366 of 2024

¶6

Kunal @ Balasaheb Kondiba Amale Age 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o. S. No.96/97, Plot No.1, Shivam Arcade Bhusari Colony, Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune, District -Pune - 411 038. ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra (CR No.746 of 2023) Through Juhu Police Station, District Mumbai. ...Respondent

¶7

Mr Nilesh Wable i/b. Umesh Mankapure, for the applicant. Mr Amit A Palkar, APP, for the respondent/ State. PI Tanaji Khade, Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, is present.

¶8

Coram: R. N. Laddha, J. Date: 24 July 2024

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Mr Nilesh Wable, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr Amit Palkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State.

¶11

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.746 of 2023, registered at Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 149, 427, 452, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.

¶12

The prosecution alleges that acting upon the applicant’s instruction, the co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and entered

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

Mamta Kale

¶15

924-aba-1366-2024.doc

¶16

the informant’s office premises. During this incident, they vandalised office furniture by breaking through the glass door and issued threats against the informant’s life. The underlying motive was to coerce the informant into withdrawing the case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (‘NI Act’) against the applicant.

¶17

Mr Nilesh Wable, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, argues that the informant’s father had expressed interest in acquiring land in the applicant’s vicinity. The applicant was approached to serve as a mediator earning a commission for facilitating the sale transactions between the agriculturalists and the informant. This arrangement was formalised in a memorandum of understanding, and the applicant delivered security cheques to the informant. However, subsequent disputes arose between the agriculturalists and the informant triggering the agriculturalists to initiate civil proceedings against the informant. Acting in good faith, the applicant insisted that the informant fulfil the sale transactions, resulting in the encashment of the security cheques. The dishonour of these cheques led to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the applicant.

¶18

Mr Wable further contends that the informant summoned the agriculturalists for negotiation. The applicant, however, was absent during the meeting when the enraged agriculturalists vandalised the informant’s office. In an attempt to grab the property without paying any compensation, the informant, motivated by anger, lodged the present FIR. The learned Counsel asserts that the informant has falsely implicated the applicant in the crime.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

Mamta Kale

¶21

924-aba-1366-2024.doc

¶22

Mr Amit Palkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, contends that the co-accused assembled unlawfully at the applicant’s behest and entered the informant’s office, causing substantial damage. They also threatened the informant’s staff to convey to the informant to withdraw the proceedings against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act. The incident was captured by CCTV cameras, and the statements of witnesses implicate the applicant in the crime. The learned APP asserts that the applicant’s custody is necessary to identify the members of the unlawful assembly. He expresses concerns about evidence tampering and witness influencing by the applicant if he is granted pre-arrest bail as the investigation is in progress.

¶23

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the informant’s office sustained damage. The incident was captured by a CCTV camera. The spot panchanama corroborates the allegations of damage to the informant’s office. According to the eye witnesses’ statements, the assailants entered the office at the behest of the applicant and vandalised the furniture, demanding the withdrawal of the complaint filed by the informant against the applicant. Prima facie, there is sufficient material to implicate the applicant in the present crime. The details of the assailants remain unascertained, and the investigation is ongoing. In the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary. As a result, the application stands rejected.

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Kunal @ Balasaheb Kondiba Amale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kunal @ Balasaheb Kondiba Amale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Jairaj Tambe vs State of Maharashtra

Sangeeta Narendra Agrawal and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Narendra Hariprasad Agrawal vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Satish Parwani vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishal Virendra Gupta vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Bhima Gondake vs State of Maharashtra