Bombay High Court
Arvind Govind Rane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 August, 2021
Author: Sandeep K. Shinde
Bench: Sandeep K. Shinde
15.ABA-1753-2021 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1753 / 2021
Arvind Govind Rane .. Applicant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
****
Mr. Suhas M. Kharat, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State/Respondent. Mr. Datta A. Bhosale, P.S.I., Nehru Nagar, Police Station, Mumbai.
****
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2021.
Per Court : -
Heard.
1. It is Complainant case that, believing the Applicant, he paid Rs. 20 Lacs to Sunil Rokade (Accused No.3), who had then agreed to secure/ sell a flat to him. Although he paid Rs. 20 Lacs to Sunil Rokade in 2015, neither amount was returned, nor a flat was sold or secured by Rokade. After lots of persuasion, on 18 th August, 2019, Applicant and Sunil Rokade jointly acknowledge a receipt of Rs. 20 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2021 01:39:52 :::
15.ABA-1753-2021 .doc Lacs. Whereafter, Mr. Rokade - Accused No.3 had issued cheques in favour of the Complainant. However, all cheques were dishonoured.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit, that although the Applicant had acknowledge receipt of Rs. 20 Lacs, but it was in a good faith, because he had introduced Mr. Rokade to the Complainant and also he being next door neighbour of Complainant. That since Mr. Rokade and the Applicant did not return the money, nor secured a flat, on report by Complainant, offence was registered against Sunil Rokade and the Applicant, i.e. Crime No. 395/2021.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that since Mr. Rokade did not return the money, nor secured a flat to the Complainant, as a moral obligation, he had acknowledge debt on 18 th August, 2019. It is submitted he has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. Be that as it may, it appears from the investigation that Applicant's daughter has filed a complaint/summary case, in 2016 against Sunil Rokade (Accused No.3) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A copy of complaint states, that Sunil Rokade had promised to sell a flat to daughter of the Applicant; 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2021 01:39:52 :::
15.ABA-1753-2021 .doc however neither he sold a flat, nor returned the consideration to Applicant's daughter. It appears the cheques issued by Rokade, were dishonoured and therefore Applicant's daughter has filed a complaint/summary case against Sunil Rokade. In the backdrop of this fact, prima facie, accusations against the applicant seems not probable.
5. In consideration of the facts stated above, in my view a case is made out for granting the interim relief to the Applicant. Stand over to 26th August, 2021. In the meanwhile, the Prosecutor shall verify a complaint, lodged by the Applicant's daughter against Sunil Rokade (Accused No.3) and submit on the next date.
6. In the mean time, in the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No.395/2021 registered with Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, he shall be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount.
7. The applicant shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer;
3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2021 01:39:52 :::
15.ABA-1753-2021 .doc
8. Stand over to 26th August, 2021 for further consideration.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) Najeeb...
4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2021 01:39:52 :::