Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mukesh Baskaran Poduval vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 October, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 2519

Author: Bharati Dangre

Bench: Bharati Dangre

                                                             1/5                23 ABA(st)-2970.20.odt
             Digitally signed
             by Mandira

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             Salgaonkar
Mandira
             Date:
Salgaonkar   2020.10.15
             14:18:13
             +0530


                                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO.2970 OF 2020



                                Mukesh Baskaran Poduval                    ..            Applicant

                                        Vs.

                                The State of Maharashtra                   ..            Respondent

                                                              ...
                                Mr. Vivek Badar i/b Mr. Vivek Karan Singh for the Applicant.

                                Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State.
                                                                 ...

                                                   CORAM: SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

                                                   DATED : 14TH OCTOBER 2020.
                                P.C:-

                                1.      The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.759 of
                                2020 registered with Wanawadi Police Station for the offences
                                punishable under Sections 406, 407, 467, 471, 504, 506(2), 34
                                and 120B of the IPC. The said C.R. implicates the Applicant
                                along with 11 other accused persons.


                                2.      The Applicant places reliance on the order passed in favour
                                of co-accused Vinay Mundada on 16/09/2020 to claim parity. In
                                order to ascertain whether the Applicant is entitled for the same

                                AJN
                             2/5                23 ABA(st)-2970.20.odt


relief, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the complaint and
the role attributed to the Applicant.


3.    The informant is one Soham Aadhav, running mill
business. He has alleged that in the year 2017, he was introduced
to one Mr. Prakash Fale (A-1) through a common friend with a
proposal to invest money in a plot held by him. The incentive
was to get his investment doubled in due course. Trusting A-1,
he invested Rs.50,000/- and handed it over to A-2, wife of A-1.
The temptation to get his amount doubled grappled the
informant and he went on making investments. It is then alleged
that the amount was demanded by giving threats and the
informant parted with Rs.2 lakhs.       In another incident, it is
alleged that A-1 purchased some clothes to the tune of
Rs.30,000/- in the credit of the informant. In another incident,
he is reported to have purchased clothes and other wares to the
tune of Rs.1,80,000/- and this amount was paid by the informant
and a whopping sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards bill of Hotel
Woodland was also cleared by the informant. The allegation is
that he has paid an amount of Rs.17 lakhs to A-1.


4.    It is then alleged that at the time of dealing with A-1, he
had come in contact with his other associates, who have been
named which include Vinay Mundada, who has been released on
bail. On the basis of this information, the persons are arraigned

AJN
                            3/5                 23 ABA(st)-2970.20.odt


as accused. On failure to return the amount as promised, the FIR
is filed.


5.     While dealing with the application of Vinay Mundada, it
was noted by me that the allegation against Vinay Mundada is
that he was present at the time when he visited the office of A-1.
Since it was not the case of the prosecution that the Applicant
ever paid the amount to Vinay Mundada, his mere presence in
the office on the date on which the informant visited his office,
seeking return of money, cannot involve him. On prima facie
ascertaining the role of Vinay Mundada, he came to be released
on bail.


6.     The Applicant submits that his case stands on a better
footing and, in my opinion, he appears to be right.                The
informant did not name the Applicant at all, but the Applicant is
arraigned as an accused since the informant states that when he
visited the office of A-1 along with the named persons, there were
other persons who were present in the office on a day in
December, 2018. Assuming that all the said persons belonged to
one group and on the statement of one of the accused - Ravindra
Barhate, who told that all the persons together have duped the
people like the informant, the Applicant has been arraigned as an
accused.    It is not the case of the prosecution that that the
informant has paid any amount to the present Applicant nor the

AJN
                               4/5                  23 ABA(st)-2970.20.odt


Applicant has received any amount from the informant. In the
backdrop of the aforesaid facts emerging from the reading of the
FIR and the case of the prosecution, the Applicant is also entitled
for similar protection as was granted in favour of co-accused
Vinay Mundada. Hence, the following order:


                                ORDER

(a) In the event of arrest, the Applicant - Mukesh Baskaran Poduval, shall be released on bail in C.R. No.759 of 2020 registered with Wanawadi Police Station, District Pune on executing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or two sureties of the like amount.

(b) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(c) The Applicant shall present himself before the Wanawadi Police Station, Dist. Pune on every Thursday between 11.00 a.m. 2.00 p.m. and co- operate with the investigation.

7. The Application is allowed in the aforestated terms.



AJN
                              5/5                 23 ABA(st)-2970.20.odt


8. All parties are directed to act on the downloaded copy of the order supplied by the Advocate under his seal and signature.

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

AJN