Bombay High Court
Vishal Ashok Pendharkar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 January, 2021
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
:1: 10-aba-01-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2021
1. Vishal Ashok Pendharkar
2. Ashok Pendharkar ... Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
-----
Mr. Vivek Babar i/b. Viral Babar for Applicants.
Mr. Zain Khan for Intervenor.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State/Respondent.
-----
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :- 05th JANUARY, 2021
P. C. :-
1. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No. 716 of 2019 registered at Dindoshi Police Station, on
27/12/2019 under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R.') is lodged by
one Shyambihari Verma. The gist of the F.I.R. is that the applicants
Digitally
signed by
Pradeepkumar
Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane
P. Deshmane Date: Gokhale 1 of 4
2021.01.06
15:01:39
+0530
:2: 10-aba-01-21.odt
were co-owners of flat No.2401, 24th floor, Maharaja Retreat CHS Ltd.,
Gokuldham, Goregaon (E). They sold this flat to the first informant.
The consideration was fixed at Rs.1,30,00,000/-. Out of that,
Rs.87,00,000/- were paid to the applicant No.1. It is the case of first
informant that the applicants had concealed the fact that the flat was
mortgaged with DHFL and only at the time of signing of the
agreement for sale, the informant was told about this fact. There are
allegations that, after registration of the agreement for sale the
applicant No.1 had promissed to handover the share certificates
within 60 days of the registration of the agreement for sale. He also
promissed to clear the loan taken on that flat. However, nothing in
that direction was done and, therefore, this offence is registered.
3. Heard Shri. Vivek Babar, learned counsel for the applicant,
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Zain Khan,
learned counsel for the proposed Intervenor.
4. The learned APP does not have instructions today and
seeks time. The learned counsel for the proposed intervenor seeks
Gokhale 2 of 4
:3: 10-aba-01-21.odt
time to file an intervention application on behalf of the first
informant. At their request, today the matter is adjourned.
5. I have considered the submissions made by Shri. Babar for
grant of interim relief. Shri. Babar invited my attention to the
registered agreement for sale which is annexed at Annexure "E"
wherein there is a clear averment in the following terms:
"That the vendors had obtained Loan amount at the
time of purchase of the said flat from DHFL and as on
date the outstanding balance is Rs.1,11,90006/-."
6. Shri. Babar, therefore, submitted that the informant was
aware of this fact and nothing was suppressed from him. Shri. Babar
also emphasized the fact that the applicant No.2 is 82 years of age and
his custodial interrogation will cause irreparable harm to him.
Considering these two submissions, today I am inclined to protect
both the applicants by way of interim relief.
7. Hence, the following order.
Gokhale 3 of 4
:4: 10-aba-01-21.odt
ORDER
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No. 716 of 2019 registered at Dindoshi Police Station, till the next date, the Applicants be released on bail on their executing P.R. bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand each Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.
(ii) This order shall operate till 09/02/2021.
(iii) The Applicant No.1 shall attend the concerned Police as and when called and he shall cooperate with the investigation.
(iv) Stand over to 09/02/2021.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Gokhale 4 of 4