Bombay High Court
Vasant Janardhan Aher vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 May, 2021
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
1/5 09-ABA-1136-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1136 OF 2021
Vasant Janardhan Aher .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Ms.Mallika A. Ingale, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent.
• Mr.Vishwajeet V. Mohite, Advocate for Intervenor.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 19th MAY, 2021
(through video conferencing)
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.539/2019 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station,
Pune, under sections 448, 420, 380 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The FIR is lodged on 12/04/2019 by one Pratibha
Prakash Sakpal. She has stated that in the year 2004 her
husband had purchased a flat at Juinagar, Sector-23, Triveni
CHS on the ground floor bearing flat No.1 by registered sale
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 20/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2021 22:27:22 :::
2/5 09-ABA-1136-21.odt
deed. The informant's husband passed away in 2009. After some
time, when she asked for some documents from the society, she
was informed that the flat was unauthorized. The informant
made further enquiries and came to know that it indeed was
unauthorized construction. In 2017, the Municipal Corporation
demolished the unauthorized part of that flat and an offence
under MRTP Act was filed against the informant. The informant
realized that the Applicant who was the builder had cheated the
informant and similar other victims. Therefore she approached
Consumer Court. In those proceedings, the Applicant made a
statement that he would hand over flat No.402 in Neha
Apartment, Ganesh Colony, Marunji, Pune to the informant. It is
alleged that, at that time, the Applicant was in jail and he
promised to execute the sale deed after his release. It is further
alleged that on the say of the Applicant; his wife and daughter
represented to the informant that, in the same society at Marunji
there were two more flats i.e. flat Nos.101 and 201 available for
sale at reasonable price. The informant decided to purchase
those flats. She paid Rs.9 lakhs. It is alleged that the possession
::: Uploaded on - 20/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2021 22:27:22 :::
3/5 09-ABA-1136-21.odt
of those two flat Nos.101 and 201 was given to the informant.
She was residing there. In August 2018, the informant had gone
to Navi Mumbai to meet her son. When her other son went to
Pune on 28/09/2018, he saw that the locks on those flats were
changed. Some persons claimed to be owner of those flats. were
sold to other parties. The informant tried to contact the
Applicant and his wife. But they did not give back the possession
and did not return Rs.9 lakhs paid by the informant. On this
basis, FIR is lodged.
3. Learned APP is seeking time to produce papers of
investigation. Therefore, today I am adjourning the matter. I
have heard learned counsel for consideration of grant or refusal
of interim relief.
4. Heard Ms.Mallika A. Ingale, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Smt.A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State and
Mr.Vishwajeet V. Mohite, learned counsel for the Intervenor.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
possession of flat No.402 at Marunji was never given to the
::: Uploaded on - 20/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2021 22:27:22 :::
4/5 09-ABA-1136-21.odt
informant because as per the agreed terms the informant first
had to execute the document relinquishing her claim about the
flat at Juinagar. This document was not executed. Therefore
further documents were not executed in the informant's favour
in respect of flat No.402 at Marunji. As far as flat Nos.101 and
102 are concerned, even those flats were not given in possession
of first informant. There is no evidence to support that claim.
She further submitted that even there is no proof of Rs.9 lakhs
having been paid by the informant. Though, there is some
reference to payment of Rs.5 lakhs at page No.81 of this
application, she submitted that even that payment was not
made. Such averment in the agreement is made only for
convenience of the parties. The real transaction was entirely
different. Even otherwise, the documents were not signed by the
Applicant and he cannot be held responsible for those
transactions.
6. Since learned APP is seeking time, I am adjourning the
matter. However, considering the submissions made by learned
::: Uploaded on - 20/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2021 22:27:22 :::
5/5 09-ABA-1136-21.odt
counsel for the Applicant, I am protecting the Applicant by way
of interim relief.
7. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.539/2019 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, till the next date, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.
(iii) This order shall operate till 30/06/2021.
(iv) Stand over to 30/06/2021.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 20/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2021 22:27:22 :::