Bombay High Court
Vipul R. Vira vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 February, 2019
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
Sknair aba-1951-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1951 OF 2018
Rajesh Mangilal Sonkar ... Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1269 OF 2018
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1951 OF 2018
Vipul R. Vira ... Intervenor
In the matter between
Rajesh Mangilal Sonkar ... Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
...
Ms. Sudha Dwivedi for the applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Agrawal for intervenor.
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Arun Padhavi, API is present.
...
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 11th February, 2019.
P.C.
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Applicant is
apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No. 104 of 2018
registered with Koparkhairane for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 452 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that the complainant purchased four
flats from co-accused i.e proprietor of Sonal Developers in the year
1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:27:42 :::
Sknair aba-1951-18.odt
2006. On 18th November, 2006 allotment was made in the name
of informant and he had paid consideration of Rs.37,30,000
against the allotment and since then the informant has been
paying monthly tax, electricity bills and society maintenance of the
said flats which are bearing No. 54, 61, 64 and 31 situated in the
same building premises. Premises which is subject matter of the
present proceeding is flat No. 61. It is alleged that applicant and
22 to 25 persons had assaulted guards, committed tresspass and
thrown the articles from the flat. First Information Report was
lodged with the police and offences were registered as stated
above on 24th April, 2018. Applicant preferred application for
anticipatory bail before the sessions Court which was rejected on
5th June, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant
has been falsely implicated in this case. The custodial
interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Except Section 452
of Indian Penal Code all the offences are bailable in nature.
Applicant is a bonafide purchaser of the said property from M/s
Sonal Developers. The agreement between developer and the
applicant was executed on 8th June, 2017 and the same was
registered and requisite stamp duty was paid on the same day.
2 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:27:42 :::
Sknair aba-1951-18.odt
The applicant has received letter of possession from the
developers. The total consideration for the flat was
Rs.60,00,000/- and out of which Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by
the applicant and for the outstanding amount of Rs.50,00,000/-,
the applicant had applied for a loan on 20 th June, 2017 with Co-
operative Credit Society. Application was accepted by the Society,
however, the loan was not cleared for want of no objection from
society.
4. The informant has been trying to evict the applicant from the
premises. Society had written letter to the police stating that
several persons are trying to occupy the said premises. It is
submitted that applicant had lodged a FIR on 9th May, 2018 stating
that applicant and his brother were assaulted by some persons
who trying to take possession of the premises. It is submitted that
dispute is of civil nature and custodial interrogation of the
applicant is not necessary.
5. Learned APP submitted that there is sufficient evidence to
show the involvement of the applicant in the crime. The applicant
had executed an agreement with the developer. It is submitted
that the property was already sold to the informant and allotment
letter was also given to the informant. It is submitted that during
3 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:27:42 :::
Sknair aba-1951-18.odt
the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses were
recorded which shows the complicity of the applicant in the crime.
Learned counsel for the intervenor also opposed the application for
anticipatory bail. Reliance is placed on several documents to claim
that the informant has right in property and he was in possession
of the same.
6. On perusal of the document on record it is apparent that the
applicant claims to have purchased the said flat vide agreement
dated 8th June, 2017. Consideration agreed to be paid was
Rs.60,00,000/- and on payment of part consideration of
Rs.10,00,000/- the agreement was registered hurriedly. It is
contended by the applicant that balance consideration was to be
paid after obtaining loan from the Credit Society which was not
disbursed on account of not providing no objection certificate.
However, the informant has alleged that the premises was in his
possession and that on the day of incident the accused had
committed tresspass, assaulted the security guards of the
complainant. During the course of investigation, statement of
witnesses were recorded. The witnesses have stated that electric
supply of DVR was disconnected from 17 th April, 2018 as electric
supply was deliberately stopped and hence CCTV footage was not
4 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:27:42 :::
Sknair aba-1951-18.odt
available. The statement of witnesses also indicate that on 23 rd
April, 2018, the applicant and 15 to 20 persons had forcibly
entered in the Flat No. 61 and assaulted the guards of the
complainant by sticks and fist blows. They threw the articles from
flat. The witnesses gave call to police on number 100. The
statements of witnesses corroborated this above version. Applicant
is the resident of the same building. The statement of the
witnesses corroborated the version of the complainant.
Considering the investigation conducted by the police, no case for
grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, I pass the following
order.
ORDER
i. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1951 of 2018 is rejected. ii. Criminal Application No. 1269 of 2018 is allowed. iii. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant made a request that the applicant would like to challenge the order before higher forum and hence interim protection be extended for a period of four weeks. Considering the fact that interim protection was granted on 24th September, 2018 and the same was extended from time to time, the interim order is further extended for a period of four weeks.
5 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:27:42 :::
Sknair aba-1951-18.odt
iv. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1951 of 2018 and Criminal
Application No. 1269 of 2018 stand disposed off.
( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) 6 of 6 ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:27:42 :::