Disposed

Vipul Dileep Lathi v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Dec 2024ABA/2840/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging execution of a lease deed and connivance regarding directorship amid property disputes between Nashik Diocesan Trust Association and Nashik Diocesan Council. Court held the dispute appeared essentially civil and difficult to discern criminality at this stage; granted interim protection with cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: on arrest, release on PR bond of Rs.50,000 each with sureties; applicants to appear before IO on 25-10-2024 and cooperate; no tampering with evidence; matter listed 14-11-2024.

Vipul Dileep Lathi vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

bipin prithiani

¶2

¶3

910&911-aba-2839.24 & anr.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2839 OF 2024

¶6

Harshal Govind Jethale 2. Pravin Kumar Purohit … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2840 OF 2024

¶9

… Vipul Dileep Lathi Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶10

¶11

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Deva Shinde and Mr. Raviraj Paramane i/by Jaydeep Vaishampayan for the Applicants. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State.

¶12

Mr. Gautam G. Sarwade, API, Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik.

¶13

¶14

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 22^nd OCTOBER 2024

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APPs for the respondent-State.

¶17

The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 0213 of 2024 dated 13^th August 2024 registered at Sarkarwada Police Station, Dist. Nashik, for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶18

bipin prithiani

¶19

¶20

910&911-aba-2839.24 & anr.doc

¶21

As against the applicants-Harshal Govind Jethale and Pravin Kumar Purohit i.e. the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2839 of 2024, the allegation appears to be that they are associated with a company called Beembox Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in whose favour a lease deed has been executed, in respect of a property with regard to which there was already a lease deed existing in favour of the informant. As against the applicant-Vipul Dileep Lathi i.e. the applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2840 of 2024, the allegation is that he connived with one coaccused Ajay Shrivastav to help the said co-accused to become a Director of one Nashik Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. and he was also instrumental in execution of the said lease deed in favour of the Beembox Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the context of a separate FIR, this Court has already granted interim relief to the said co-accused-Ajay Shrivastav and also other accused persons concerning the said FIR, specifically taking note of disputes between two entities i.e. the aforesaid Nashik Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. on the one hand and Nashik Diocesan Council on the other, with regard to properties located in and around Nashik. It is submitted that the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation and since the allegations pertain to documentary material, the physical custody of the applicants may not be necessary.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned APPs submit that there are

¶24

bipin prithiani

¶25

¶26

910&911-aba-2839.24 & anr.doc

¶27

sufficient allegations in the statement, leading to registration of the FIR, to indicate the role of the applicants and this Court may not show any indulgence.

¶28

Having perused the nature of allegations made against the applicants in the present case, this Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the backdrop of the disputes in the present case is indeed the disputes between the Nashik Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. and Nashik Diocesan Council, which essentially appear to be civil disputes.

¶29

In these applications, this Court is inclined to grant interim relief, for the reason that at this stage, it is difficult to understand the incriminating material or the criminality alleged against the applicants. It is only upon the investigation papers being produced and the applicants appearing before the Investigating Officer that the details of the disputes can be placed before this Court. The applicants have undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant interim relief.

¶30

In view of the above, the following interim order is passed :

¶31

(a) Till the next date, in the event the applicants are arrested in connection with FIR No. 0213 of 2024 dated 13^th August 2024 registered at Sarkarwada Police Station, Dist. Nashik, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.50,000/- each and one or two sureties each in the like

¶32

bipin prithiani

¶33

¶34

910&911-aba-2839.24 & anr.doc

¶35

amount.

¶36

(b) The applicants shall remain present before the Investigating Officer on 25^th October 2024 between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon and thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶37

(c) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

¶38

In the event, the applicants violate any of the aforesaid conditions, the order passed today would be recalled.

¶39

List these applications for further consideration on 14^th November 2024 (High on Board).

¶40

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶41

BIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDERPRITHIANIDate: 2024.10.22 18:17:34+0530

Vipul Dileep Lathi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipul Dileep Lathi v. 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

Shrihari Kondaji Shelke vs State of Maharashtra

Panish @ Pangya Ananda Bhosale vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhishek @ Akshay Devidas Nirmal vs the State of Maharashtra

Muktar Mainuddin Kazi and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Balveen Kaur Gandhi vs Kamraj Co. Operative Crdit Society Ltd. and Anr.

Bhupinder Singh Anand vs M/S Kamraj Co. Operative Credit Society Ltd. through Miss. Suvarna Prakash Salviand Anr.