Disposed

Dilip Kalyanji Shah v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Aug 2024APPLN/182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought modification of a Sessions Court condition restricting alienation of immovable property imposed on granting anticipatory bail for offences including assault over a land dispute. Holding the condition irrelevant to the offence and contrary to the scope of Section 438 CrPC, the Court deleted it.

What did the court decide?

Condition no.2(iv) prohibiting alienation of immovable property was deleted from the anticipatory bail orders dated 10 May 2024.

Dilip Kalyanji Shah vs State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Mamta Kale 913-APPLN-179-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Cri. Application No.179 of 2024

¶4

Umeshchandra Krishnarao Powar

¶5

Adult Indian Inhabitant Aged about 55 years, Occ:Business Having address at Flat No.9,

¶6

4^th Floor, Jai Bhavani Coop. Hsg Society Ltd, Gokhale Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai-400 081

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

The Inspector of Police Kanjurmarg Police Station.

¶11

Kailash Sudam Bhoir 472, 477, Ramchandra Bhoir Chawl, Shreenath Society, Bhandup (E) Mumbai-400 042.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

With

¶14

Cri. Application No.181 of 2024

¶15

Vrushali Vijay Panchal Adult Indian Inhabitant Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business.

¶16

Namdeo Govind More Adult Indian Inhabitant Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business.

¶17

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2024.12.1416:03:36+0530

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

12 December 2024

¶20

Mamta Kale 913-APPLN-179-2024.doc

¶21

Yashraj Vijay Panchal Adult Indian Inhabitant Aged about 27 years, Occ: CA

¶22

All having office address at Flat No.9, 4^th floor, Jai Bhavani CHS, Gokhale Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai - 400081.

¶23

… Applicants

¶24

Versus

¶25

The State of Maharashtra

¶26

The Inspector of Police Kanjurmarg Police Station

¶27

Kailash Sudam Bhoir 472, 477, Ramchandra Bhoir Chawl, Shreenath Society, Bhandup (E) Mumbai-400 042.

¶28

… Respondents

¶29

With

¶30

Cri. Application No.182 of 2024

¶31

Dilip Kalyanji Shah Adult Indian Inhabitant Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business Having address at 5/14, Janki Kunj, Opp. Ramanand Society, MV Pandloskar Marg, Hanuman Cross Road No.2, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57.

¶32

… Applicant.

¶33

Versus

¶34

The State of Maharashtra

¶35

Page 2 of 6 _________________________________________________ 12 December 2024

¶36

Mamta Kale 913-APPLN-179-2024.doc

¶37

The Inspector of Police Kanjurmarg Police Station.

¶38

Kailash Sudam Bhoir 472, 477, Ramchandra Bhoir Chawl, Shreenath Society, Bhandup (E) Mumbai-400 042 … Respondents

¶39

Mr Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, along with Mr RK Kini, Mr Anukul Setha, Mr Talha Siddiqui and Mr Eden Ribeiro, for the applicants.

¶40

Ms Supriya Kak, APP, for the respondent/State. PSI Sarkte, Kanjurmarg Police Station.

¶41

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 12 December 2024.

¶42

P.C.:

¶43

By these applications, the applicants seek modification of condition No.2(iv) imposed by the Sessions Court while granting pre-arrest bail on 10 May 2024 in Anticipatory Bail Applications No.565 of 2024, 752 of 2024, and 760 of 2024.

¶44

The relevant operative part of these orders reads as follows:

¶45

“The applicant shall not alienate any immovable property in his name or in the name of his family members or any other concern person if any, without permission of the Court.”

¶46

The applicants applied to modify this condition before the

¶47

Page 3 of 6 _________________________________________________ 12 December 2024

¶48

Mamta Kale 913-APPLN-179-2024.doc

¶49

Sessions Court; however, on 24 June 2024, the request was denied, citing the ongoing investigation. The Sessions Court also granted liberty to the applicants to renew their request after filing the charge sheet.

¶50

Mr Aabad Ponda, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the informant and the applicants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to sell a land. Disputes arose between them, leading to the informant filing a civil suit bearing No.453 of 2023 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The informant alleges that during the pendency of this suit, on 3 February 2024, the applicants encroached upon the land and assaulted the informant, resulting in the filing of the present FIR. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the informant has applied for a temporary injunction in the suit. While the informant was granted ad-interim relief on 31 January 2024, the City Civil Court vacated it on 2 February 2024. According to Mr Ponda, the aforesaid condition is in the nature of an injunction and binds the other family members who have no connection with the alleged crime. To bolster his submissions, Mr Ponda cites Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Mahesh Chandra Vs State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 196; Munish Bhasin Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 4 SCC 45; Amarjit

¶51

Page 4 of 6

¶52

12 December 2024

¶53

Mamta Kale 913-APPLN-179-2024.doc

¶54

Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 13 SCC 769; Sumit Mehta Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570; Dilip Singh Vs State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 779; Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar, (2023) 11 SCC 607; and Ramesh Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 7 SCC 461 .

¶55

Ms Supriya Kak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, submits that the offence is serious, and the investigation is ongoing. However, if the Court is inclined to modify the condition, appropriate orders may be passed.

¶56

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the crime vide CR No.56 of 2024 was registered by the informant against the applicants at the Kanjurmarg Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 427, 452, 448, 504 and 506, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Before registering this crime, the informant filed a suit for declaration against the applicants in the City Civil Court, Mumbai. In the application for a temporary injunction, initially, the informant was granted ad-interim relief on 31 January 2024; however, this relief was vacated on 2 February 2024. By imposing the aforesaid condition, the Sessions Court appears to have imposed a condition irrelevant to the offence and in contrast to the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

¶57

Page 5 of 6

¶58

12 December 2024

¶59

Mamta Kale 913-APPLN-179-2024.doc

¶60

In light of the above, this Court is inclined to delete condition No.2(iv) imposed by the Sessions Court on 10 May 2024 in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.565 of 2024, 752 of 2024, and 760 of 2024, and is deleted accordingly.

¶61

The applications stand disposed of.

¶62

(R. N. Laddha, J.)

¶63

Page 6 of 6

¶64

12 December 2024

Dilip Kalyanji Shah v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kalyanji Shah 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yogesh Prabhudas Chandarana vs State of Maharashtra

Canara Bank and Ors. vs the Inspector Appointed Under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards

Rajiv Kishan Kumar Bhatia vs State of Maharashtra

Omprakash Berlia vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Prerana Rajendra Aher@Prerna Tukaran Patil and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dipti Suresh Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra