Allowed

Seema Amruta Keswad v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Jan 2024ABA/3670/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. The court observed that the applicant acted only at the behest of her husband and played no independent role in the offence, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Directed release on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs.30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, and directed to cooperate with investigation.

Seema Amruta Keswad Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 : 1 : 16.ABA-3670-23.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3670 OF 2023

¶4

Seema Amruta Keswad .... Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶5

Mr. S. N. More, Advocate a/w. Animesh Jadhav, Sheetal
Mishra i/b. Hemant Nivangune for the Applicant.
Smt. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 02nd JANUARY, 2024

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.752/2023 registered at Mahalunge
MIDC Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune dated
17.11.2023 under sections 420, 465, 471 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.

¶9

2.Heard Shri S. N. More, learned counsel for the

¶10

Applicant and Smt. M.H. Mhatre, learned APP for the
Respondent-State.

¶11

1 of 6

¶12

Deshmane (PS)

¶13

 : 2 : 16.ABA-3670-23.odt

¶14

3.The FIR is lodged by one Manohar Naidu. He

¶15

wanted to purchase a land. He came to know through a social
networking site that one agent Sachin Mehtre had put a status
on his account that there was an industrial plot for sale at
Chakan. The informant came to know about this on 8.5.2021.
He contacted Sachin Mehtre, who in turn called him at the
location on 23.5.2021. On that day, Sachin Mehtre and
Amruta Keswad were present at the location. This Amruta
Keswad is the Applicant’s husband. Both of them told the
informant that there was a loan taken on that property from
the Federal Bank. The key of the premises was with the bank.
On 25.5.2021, the informant again went to the spot and he
was told that the bank officers would be present there.
Accordingly the premises were opened. The informant liked
that property. He decided to purchase it. He was told that
Amruta would settle the loan with the bank through One Time
Settlement. Amruta told him that the One Time Settlement
was for Rs.92 Lakhs and that he himself would sell that

¶16

2 of 6

¶17

 : 3 : 16.ABA-3670-23.odt

¶18

property to the informant for Rs.82 Lakhs. The informant
gave him Rs.9 Lakhs. However, when the public notice was
given about the property, there were some objections received
and the transaction could not go through. In the meantime,
the bank declared auction of the said property by publishing
an advertisement on 30.10.2021. The base price was kept at
Rs.80 Lakhs. The informant participated in the tender and
purchased the property for Rs.80,01,000/-. Said property was
at village Kharabwadi, Taluka-Khed, District-Pune originally
owned by Amruta i.e. the Applicant’s husband. The sale deed
was executed. The possession of the property was given to the
informant by the bank. The informant approached the
Grampanchayat Kharabwadi for entering his name in the
record. The grampanchayat removed encumberance of the
bank from the record. However, the 7/12 was still not
transferred in the informant’s name. When the informant
made inquiries with the Registrar’s office, at that time he came
to know that Amruta had executed a gift-deed in the name of
his son Swaraj and the Applicant had put her signature on that

¶19

3 of 6

¶20

 : 4 : 16.ABA-3670-23.odt

¶21

gift-deed as a consenting party. That document was entered
into the record at the Talathi office. Amruta was demanding
Rs.10 Lakhs from the informant. He did not return Rs.9
Lakhs, which were already paid and he was demanding further
Rs.10 Lakhs. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

¶22

4.Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
there are hardly any allegations in the FIR against the present
Applicant. The only allegation is that she has put her
signature as a consenting party on the gift-deed as her son was
a minor. According to the learned counsel the dispute, if at all,
was purely civil in nature. The Applicant was not a party to
any previous agreements or transactions. The Applicant’s
custodial interrogation is not necessary.

¶23

5.Learned APP opposed these submissions.

¶24

According to her, the Applicant was fully aware of the
transactions from the very beginning and inspite of that she
became a party to the gift-deed and thus tried to deprive the
informant of his legitimate property.

¶25

4 of 6

¶26

 : 5 : 16.ABA-3670-23.odt

¶27

6.I have considered these submissions. As rightly

¶28

submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant, there are
hardly any allegations against the Applicant warranting her
custodial interrogation. All the allegations are directed
towards her husband Amruta. The Applicant was neither a
party to the previous transactions nor she has made any
representation to the first informant. She had not taken
money from the first informant. Apparently, her husband
Amruta had tried to play mischief by transferring the property
by way of a gift-deed and used the Applicant as she was
mother of their minor son in whose name the property was to
be transferred. Thus, it is quite clear that the Applicant had
acted at the behest of her husband. She has not played an
independent role in the entire offence. She is a lady. In this
background, her custodial interrogation is totally unnecessary.
She deserves the protection of anticipatory bail.

¶29

7.Hence, the following order :

¶30

5 of 6

¶31

 : 6 : 16.ABA-3670-23.odt

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) In the event of her arrest in connection with C.R. No.752/2023 registered at Mahalunge MIDC Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶34

(ii) The Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation, including giving her specimen signatures etc..

¶35

(iii) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶37

Deshmane (PS)

¶38

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date: 2024.01.08 10:26:25 +0530

¶39

6 of 6

Seema Amruta Keswad v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Amruta Keswad 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

Similar cases

Raj Arvind Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hifzur Rehman Ansari and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Sitaram Modhe Vs State of Maharashtra

Priyanka Sidheshwar Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Harilal Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajim Mulla Aliwari Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra