Dismissed¶30

Praveena Govind Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2025ABA/3314/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail (ABA 3314/2024, Praveena Govind Rathod; with IA 5265/2024, Ashutosh Mohan Parab), Bombay HC, Rajesh S. Patil J., dismissed for non-prosecution on 14-02-2025 after non-compliance with the 09-12-2024 undertaking to deposit Rs.11 lakhs with the Registry and non-appearance of the applicant; underlying dispute described by counsel as a civil loan transaction of Rs.18 lakhs (Rs.7 lakhs repaid) spanning 2017–2020; first informant intervened through Rohin R. Chauhan and Nishant Kardak; Nitin B. Patil APP for State; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Since the directions given by the Court were not complied with and none appeared for the applicant, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶30

Praveena Govind Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:7383

¶2

Diksha Rane 11 ABA 3314-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3314/2024

¶5

PRAVEENA GOVIND RATHOD ..APPLICANT

¶6

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR ..RESPONDENTS WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5265/2024 IN

¶9

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3314/2024

¶10

ASHUTOSH MOHAN PARAB ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

None for applicant.

¶12

Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for State.

¶13

Mr. Rohin R. Chauhan a/w. Mr. Nishant Kardak for intervener. WAPI Savita Mohite, Vashi Police Station.

¶14

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶15

DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2025.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1. By an order dated 9/12/2024, the statement made by the

¶18

applicant through his counsel was recorded. For ease of reference the

¶19

said order dated 9/12/2024 is reproduced hereinbelow

¶20

. Heard.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the entire transaction is of a civil nature. The transaction spanning from the period 2017 to 2020. The applicant has received a loan amount of Rs.18 lakhs

¶22

¶23

Diksha Rane 11 ABA 3314-2024.doc

¶24

from the first informant, out of which, he has already repaid Rs.7 lakhs to the first informant. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. The learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submits that the applicant will deposit Rs.11 lakhs within two weeks from today with the Registry of this Court.

¶25

Mr Rohin Chauhan appears on behalf of the first informant and seeks time to take instructions and file intervention application. The learned APP also seeks time to take instructions, as the investigating officer is not present and states that the applicant will not be arrested in the present crime till the next date.”

¶26

2. None appears for the applicant when the matter is called out.

¶27

The office note shows that the applicant has not complied with the undertaking given to this Court about deposit of Rs.11 lakhs within two weeks with the Registry.

¶28

3. Since the directions given by this Court is not complied and

¶29