Disposed

Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2024ABA/2161/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants apprehended arrest in a Delhi EOW FIR sought interim protection in Bombay High Court. The court granted only two weeks' protection from arrest or coercive action with conditions, expressly not assessing merits or anticipatory bail entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks' protection from arrest/coercive action for both applicants, conditional on remaining in Maharashtra (except travel to Delhi for bail), notifying police and not obstructing investigation.

Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

29-aba-2161-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2161 of 2024

¶5

Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani

¶6

Indian Inhabitant, 73, Occ. Business, R/at. 10, Shanti Sadan, Ground Floor, J. B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 59.

¶7

Raunak Ramakant Pilani Indian Inhabitant, Age 36, Occ. Serviceman, R/at. 10, Shanti Sadan, Ground Floor,

¶8

J. B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 59. Vs.

¶9

...Applicants

¶10

The State of Maharashtra (Through Senior Inspector of Police,

¶11

J. B. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai)

¶12

The State of NCT of Delhi (Through Economics Offences Wingh, Delhi) ...Respondents

¶13

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.08.0516:50:11+0530

¶14

Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w. Ranmiz Shaikh, a/w. Rishi Bindra a/w. Rahul Jain a/w. Vikramjeet Siram i/b. Rizwan Merchant & Associates, for the Applicants.

¶15

Mr. M. G. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶16

Coram: R. N. Laddha, J. Date: 5 August 2024

¶17

P.C.

¶18

. Leave to file service affidavit. The same shall be filed during the

course of the day.

Page 1 of 3

Mamta Kale

29-aba-2161-2024.doc

Heard Mr. Rizwan Merchant, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M. G. Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent – State. None present for the respondent No.2.

¶24

In this application, the applicants has approached this Court projecting extreme urgency in the matter for the reason that he apprehended arrest in connection with C.R. No.86 of 2024 registered with EOW, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are seeking limited relief of protection until they approach the competent Court of jurisdiction for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid crime registered against them.

¶26

Learned APP has emphasized that since the FIR is registered at EOW, New Delhi, really speaking, the respondent-State would not have much to say in the matter. He states that even if this Court is inclined to grant relief, it may impose appropriate conditions to prevent misuse of the relief.

¶27

It is a settled position in law that the limited relief of protection can be granted to the applicants, only to facilitate approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction.

Page 2 of 3

Mamta Kale

29-aba-2161-2024.doc

This Court is not going into the merits of the matter or entitlement of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in any manner. Since there is possibility of applicants’ arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime, which cannot be said to be misplaced or imaginary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to protect the applicants for a limited period to enable them to approach the competent Court. Hence, the following order.

¶32

(i) The applicants are granted protection from coercive action or arrest only for a period of two weeks from today provided the applicants during this period shall not leave the State of Maharashtra except to travel to New Delhi for moving such application before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

¶33

(ii) The applicants shall inform the concerned police station of State of Maharashtra about this order passed by the Court.

¶34

(iii) The applicants shall not act in any manner that would be prejudicial to the investigation that may be carried out by the concerned police officer in respect of aforesaid FIR.

¶35

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

R. N. Laddha, J.

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani and Anr. v. 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

Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mushtak Nisar Momin vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjan Rupasi Nisar vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinay Malkit Baid vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Popat Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra