Parvez Mohammed Murtaza Alam vs State of Maharashtra

By this application, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) the Applicant is seeking prearrest bail in connection with C.R. No.557 of 2023 registered with Nandgaon Police Station, Nashik Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

Dusane

¶18

613 ABA 839.25.DOC

¶19

As per the prosecution case, certain land situated at Uttarakhand was agreed to be purchased by the First Informant for a total consideration of Rs.11,00,50,000/-. Out of that, an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- has been paid. As per the prosecution case, an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- has been paid to Accused No.1-Vinod Ashok Bhosale in cash and an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been paid by one Pawan Ratanlal Kalantri, who is Associate of the First Informant and the said amount is transferred in the bank account of the Applicant.

¶20

Mr. Mulani, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that said Mr. Pawan Kalantri has transferred an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the bank account of the Applicant and the Applicant had transferred the same to the bank account of Accused No.1. He submits that the main role is of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, who have been arrested on 14^th January 2024 and 26^th July 2024 respectively. Both of them have been released on regular bail. He submits that the Applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation and the Applicant is not involved in the crime. He further submits that the Charge-sheet is already filed against

Page 2 of 5

Dusane

613 ABA 839.25.DOC

Accused Nos.1 and 2. He submits that thus the investigation is substantially completed.

¶25

On the other hand, learned APP strongly opposes granting pre-arrest bail to the Applicants. She submitted that during the investigation, it was found that an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid to the present Applicant.

¶26

However, as per the prosecution case, as reflected in the F.I.R., the Complainant has paid total amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, out of that Rs.1,00,00,000/- was paid to Accused- Vinod Bhosale in cash, who has been arrested and released on regular bail and the Charge-sheet is already filed against him. As per the F.I.R., the role of the present Applicant is that an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been transferred in his account by one Pawan Kalantri i.e. associate of the First Informant.

¶27

Mr. Mulani, learned Counsel states that the Bank statement, which has been annexed on Page-251 onwards clearly show that the said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been transferred to Accused No.1. In any case, the Charge-sheet is already filed against the

Page 3 of 5

Dusane

613 ABA 839.25.DOC

Accused Nos.1 and 2, the Applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation and there are no antecedents against the Applicant.

¶32

Accordingly, case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant, by imposing certain conditions. Hence, following Order is passed:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant Parvez Mohammed Murtaza Alam be released on bail in C.R. No.557 of 2023, registered with Nandgaon Police Station, Nashik Rural, on executing P.R. bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnishing one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶35

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on 13^th October 2025, 14^th October 2025 and 15^th October 2025 between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

Page 4 of 5

Dusane

613 ABA 839.25.DOC

(iii) The Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶40

(iv) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or to any Police personnel.

¶41

(v) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant, or any witness, in any manner.

¶42

(vi) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶43

The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶44

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶45

Page 5 of 5

¶46

Dusane

Parvez Mohammed Murtaza Alam v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvez Mohammed Murtaza Alam v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sachin Namdev Dhotre vs State of Maharashtra

1a Seema King vs Bhagwan Tuljaram Shahani and Ors.

Krishnabai Haresh Kewlany vs Hemant Amarchand Chhadva Partner M/S. Bright Enterprises and Ors.

Baban Dattatray Gholap vs Laxman Kondiba Gholap Deceased

Raju Subhas Koli vs Hari Vithoba Mali

Shri Raju Subhas Koli vs Shri Hari Vithoba Mali