Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
..1..952-aba-2105-23 +IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD952 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2105 OF 2023ASHOK KUMAR ARORAVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vikram S. KadamAPP for Respondents / State : Mr. S. V. HangeAdvocate for assist to PP : Ms. M. D. Deshmukh ...WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2041 OF 2023KANTA DEVI DHANUKA AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ms. P. S. Talekar h/f. Talekar and AssociatesAPP for Respondents : Mr. S. V. HangeAdvocate for assist to PP : Mr. S. K. Chavan h/f. Ms.M. D. Deshmukh …AND960 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1426 OF 2024SUSHIL KUMAR KISHANCHAND SEHAGALVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Applicant : Mrs Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Ms. Namita P. TholeAPP for Respondents / State : Mr. D. B. BhangeAdvocate for assist to PP : Mr. Ganesh V. Mohekar…WITH
Legal Reasoning
..2..952-aba-2105-23 +CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3795 OF 2024 IN ABA/1426/2024VITTHAL NATHA DONDHEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ganesh V. Mohekar…CORAM: R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE: 19.12.2024 Common order :1.These applications are filed for anticipatory bail by the directorsof the T.S. Apartment and Motels Private Limited, Delhi and twopurchasers who are the Directors of Nanda Deep Associates PrivateLimited, Delhi and Vibhor Trackon Private Ltd., Kolkata. The firstinformant is the purchaser of the subject land in Gut No. 20/2excluding 40 R. situated at Shirdi in December 2013 admeasuring 40 R.situated at Patghardi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. The reportindicates that in the first week of December, 2013 the informantdecided to purchase the land. Through a property agent he wasintroduced to Ritesh Suresh Malik who, claimed himself is said to bethe representative of T.S. Apartment and Motels Private Limited. SaidRitesh had shown his documents indicating that the agricultural landstands in the name of Company. The said transaction was fixed for atotal consideration of Rs. 1,31,00,000/- ( Rupees One Crore Thirty One ..3..952-aba-2105-23 +Lac only). The informant states that at the time of execution ofagreement to sell a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to Ritesh in cash,whereas cheque was issued in favour of Suresh Kumar Malik. It isclaimed that thereafter registered sale-deed came to be executed bySuresh Malik on behalf of the T.S. Apartment and Motels Pvt. Ltd. onthe basis of the resolution passed by the other Directors . In June -2022, informant received summons in RCS No.70/2022 and thereafterhe found that in respect of the said property there were twotransactions entered into with Nanda Deep Associates Pvt. Ltd. andVibhor Trackon Private Ltd., Kolkata. Informant, therefore, alleged thatthe accused persons, who are the Directors of these Companies, incollusion with each other have cheated present informant.2.Learned counsel for the applicants have drawn attention of thisCourt to the various transactions entered into between the parties. It ispointed out that except for the document executed in favour of VibhorTrackon Private Ltd., the other documents are not executed by all theDirectors.It is their contention that the document i.e. the resolutionpassed by the Board of Directors on 30.04.2014, is a bougs documentand to support the said submission, the attention of the Court is drawnto the agreement to sell executed between Suresh Malik and informant.
Legal Reasoning
..4..952-aba-2105-23 +The agreement to sell is of December, 2013, whereas the resolution ispassed much thereof. It is their submission that in respect of thisresolution, appropriate provisional complaint is lodged against Suresh.It is their submissions that in respect of these sale deeds, suits arepending before the competent said court and as such, it is not the casewherein the arrest bail be denied to the applicants.3.Learned APP opposes the application by submitting that afterobtaining interim relief, the applicants have not co-operated ininvestigation. It is his submission that sale-deed in respect of land gutno. 20/2 is executed by Suresh Malik. It is also claimed that theMinutes of the meeting as well as the resolution with signatures are notprovided by them. In response to those submission learned counsel forthe applicants have brought to the notice that the responses given tothe notice issued by the Investigating Officer indicating that theirthumb impression and the specimen signatures are already obtained on27.04.2024.4.Learned counsel for the informant submits that since all theaccused have acted in collusion with each other and since inception ofthe initial transaction there was an intention to cheat informant. It is ..5..952-aba-2105-23 +his submission that the said transactions with Vibhor Trackon Pvt. Ltd.and Nanda Deep Associates Pvt. Ltd. are not valid transactions and thatthere is no evidence to show that any consideration was passed whileexecuting the said document. It is his submission that all thesedocuments are created in order to cheat informant. He also drewattention of the Court to the documents on record which according tohim indicate that all Directors of three Companies are connected witheach other and which can be seen on the fact that Nanda DeepAssociates Pvt. Ltd. had lent an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to T & S.Apartment and Motels Pvt. Ltd. It is his submission that having regardto the evidence on record the involvement of all applicants can be seenin this crime.5.At this stage, it is difficult for this Court to accept the contentionof the learned counsel for the informant that the parties are decided inthe year 2010 itself to cheat the informant herein and therefore thosesale-deeds were executed. Apart from this, prima-facie perusal of therecord indicates that the agreement to sell is executed by the son ofSuresh Malik in his individual capacity. The text of the said agreementto sell does not reveal that the sale was to be effected for and on behalfof Company. This agreement to sell is executed in December, 2013 ..6..952-aba-2105-23 +whereas the resolution sought to be relied upon is dated 30.04.2014.This Court, therefore, finds reason to accept the contention of thelearned counsel for the applicants, at this stage, that this would be thecase of co-accused having created the said documents to involve presentapplicants in the crime.6. It is pertinent to note that the entire consideration has been paidindividually to Suresh Malik. Even the resolution does not authorizehim to receive the consideration individually. This is not the caseagainst the consideration has gone on account of company in order tomake other Directors also liable for the same.7.Prima facie consideration of over all records does not show thatthis is a case of custodial interrogation. There is no dispute about thefact that thumb impressions and specimen signatures of applicants areobtained. It can not be said that they did not cooperate in theinvestigation. They are not likely to flee from justice. 8. In any case, the custodial interrogation of the applicants neednot be necessary for want of any recovery. Hence, the order :- ..7..952-aba-2105-23 +ORDERi) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1426 Of 2024 is allowed.ii) Applicant – Shri Sushil Kumar s/o Kishanchand Sehgal, inconnection with Crime no. 104 of 2023 dated 15.02.2023 registeredwith Rahata Police Station, Rahata, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagarfor the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code be released on bail, on furnishing P. R. Bond ofRs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with one solvent surety ofthe like amount.iii) He should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.iv) He should attend the Police Station as and when called by theInvestigating Officer on written notice.(v) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2105 of 2023 and AnticipatoryBail Application No. 2041 of 2023 are allowed by confirming interimorder dated 18.12.2023.5.Needless to say that observations made hereinabove are prima-facie for the limited purpose of deciding these applications.6.Pending Criminal Application, if any, is disposed off accordingly. (R.M. JOSHI, J.) shp