Disposed

Pronit Prem Nath and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Mar 2024ABA/68/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by two flat developers accused under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC of taking Rs.58,50,000 from an informant for a flat never delivered. Court directed impleading the first informant as respondent and granted ad-interim protection till next date.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim anticipatory bail: release on P.R. bonds of Rs.30,000 each with sureties if arrested, operative till 15.2.2024.

Pronit Prem Nath and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

14.aba-68-24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2024

¶5

Pronit Prem Nath & Anr. …..Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Ashwin Thool, Advocate a/w. Archismati Chandramore for the Applicant.

¶7

Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

Mr. Prerak Choudhary, Advocate for the first informant.

¶9

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶10

DATE : 11^th JANUARY, 2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in

¶13

connection with C.R.No.573/2023 registered with Andheri

¶14

Police Station, Mumbai on 21.11.2023 under Sections 409, 420 read with 120-B of IPC.

¶15

Heard Shri Ashwin Thool, learned counsel for the

¶16

Applicant and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

Deshmane(PS)

¶19

: 2 : 14.aba-68-24.odt

¶20

The FIR is lodged by one Samir Kochar. The gist

¶21

of the FIR is that he has paid Rs.58,50,000/- for purchase of the third floor on the property which was to be developed by the Applicants. Inspite of accepting the money the property was not given and, therefore, this FIR is lodged. The FIR also mentions some transactions wherein another flat purchaser Bangera has lost his money.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that at the highest it is a civil dispute for breach of contract. The first informant has already filed a suit for specific performance. Therefore, there is no criminality attached to it.

¶23

Advocate Mr. Prerak Choudhary appears and states that he has instructions to appear for the first informant as intervenor. He seeks time to file intervention application. He submitted that he was heard when the anticipatory bail application of the Applicants was decided by the Court of Session.

¶24

2 of 4

¶25

: 3 : 14.aba-68-24.odt

¶26

Considering these submissions, learned counsel

¶27

for the Applicants is directed to implead the first informant

¶28

as a party Respondent. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

¶29

Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicants today, till the next date, the Applicants can be protected by way of ad-interim relief. Hence, the following order:

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

(i) Issue notice to the added Respondent, returnable on 15.2.2024. Learned counsel Mr. Prerak Choudhary

¶32

waives service of notice on the Respondent No.2.

¶33

(ii) The added Respondent is at liberty to file affidavit-in-

¶34

reply. Said reply shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today, with a copy to other side.

¶35

(iii) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.573/2023 registered with Andheri Police

¶36

Station, Mumbai, till the next date, the Applicants be released on bail on their executing P.R. bonds in the

¶37

3 of 4

¶38

: 4 : 14.aba-68-24.odt sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶39

(iv) This order shall operate till 15.2.2024.

¶40

(v) Stand over to 15.2.2024.

¶41

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶42

4 of 4

Pronit Prem Nath and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pronit Prem Nath and Anr. 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

Mrs. Chitra Amol Patil Vs Mrs. Amol Alias Devendra Ravindra Patil

Mr. Santosh Sabaji Malkar Vs Mrs. Sarika Santosh Malkar

Neha Sumeet Bal Vs Sumeet Shrikant Bal

Virama Laminate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Anthony Garage Pvt. Ltd.

Maruti Sitaram Acharrekar, Thr. Lrs. Ganesh Maruti Acharekar Vs Dilip Chandrakant Shinde

Maruti Sitaram Acharekar, Thru. Poa Sou. Pooja Ganesh Acharekar Vs Dilip Chandrakant Shinde