Bombay High Court
Suhas Gurappa Humbarwadi And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 December, 2020
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
10- ABA 1081 of 2020.doc
Vaishali
A. Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
Vaishali A. Tikam
Date: 2020.12.28
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
21:03:20 +0530
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1081 OF 2020
Suhas Guappa Humbarwadi and Anr. ...Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
*****
Mr. Kiran Kulkarni a/w. Twinkle Nagda i/b. Kulkarni &
Associates for Applicants
Mr. J.P. Yaganik, APP for the State
*****
CORAM :- MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J
(VACATION COURT)
DATE :- DECEMBER 28, 2020.
P. C.:
1. This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail in
C.R. NO. 1461 of 2020 registered with Sadar Bazar Police
Station at Solapur.
Tikam
1/6
10- ABA 1081 of 2020.doc
2. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that an amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- were paid from time to time by the Informant
to the accused for purchase of fat. However, the said
transaction was not completed and in the meanwhile certain
disputes arose between the Applicants and the Informant.
Thereafter compromise was arrived between them and it was
decided that the said amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and
additional amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation
would be paid by the Applicants to the Informant. It appears
that the cheque of Rs.55,00,000/- issued by the Applicants to
the informant was dishonoured and, therefore, the FIR under
Section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged on
10.11.2020.
3. The Applicants fled application for anticipatory
bail bearing Criminal Bail Application No. 1372 of 2020
before the Hon'ble Sessions Judge of Solapur at Solapur.
While rejecting the said anticipatory bail application, the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in his order
dated 14.12.2020 specifcally observed in paragraph 9 that
Tikam
2/6
10- ABA 1081 of 2020.doc
the allegations in the FIR and the transactions taken place in
between the Applicants and the Informant are prima facie
entitled the Applicants/accused to get anticipatory bail.
However, it is further observed that the Informant has fled
his affdavit at Exhibit 11 and pointed out that about 11 cases
are pending against the Applicants/Accused and in three
cases non-bailable warrant was issued against the
Applicants/Accused.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicants point out
that the observation in the order of Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Solapur that 11 cases are pending against the
Applicants and out of which, in 3 cases, N.B.W. were issued is
not correct. He has produced a chart of all these 11 cases. He
submits that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur
has stated that N.B.W. were issued against the Accused -
Applicant No.1 in STC No. 3162/2014, STC No. 730/2016 and
STC No. 164/2015. As far as STC No. 730/2016 and STC No.
164/2015 are concerned, the offence is under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned counsel for
Tikam
3/6
10- ABA 1081 of 2020.doc
the Applicants states that the N.B.W is not issued in those
matter. As far as the offence in STC No. 3162 of 2014 is
concerned, the same is under Section 74 of the Maharashtra
Value Added Tax,2002 and the Learned Advocate of the
Applicants makes a statement that N.B.W is not issued in
that matter also.
5. It is to be noted that as far as 11 cases are
concerned, 9 cases are arising out of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 2009 and one case is as stated
earlier is arising out of offence under Section 74 of the
Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002. So far as R.C.C No. 661
of 2018 is concerned, the offence is under Section 406, 420,
445, 467, 476 and 471 of IPC and the same is a private
complaint where the proceedings are pending on Report
under Section 202. Thus, it is clear that the pendency of the
said case will have no bearing on this case.
6. As far as the present case is concerned, prima facie
it is a civil dispute which has been converted into a criminal
case. Therefore, in this case, the Applicants are entitled for
Tikam
4/6
10- ABA 1081 of 2020.doc
anticipatory bail.
7. Thus, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest, the Applicant viz. Suhas
Gurappa Humbarwadi -Applicant No.1 and Swapnil Mohan Ghorpade - Applicant No.2 are entitled for release on bail in respect of FIR No. 1461 of 2020 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- each and on furnishing one or more sureties of like amount by each of the Applicants.
(iii) The Applicants shall present themselves before the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur as and when summoned by the Investigating Offcer and cooperate with the investigation.
(iv) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person Tikam 5/6 10- ABA 1081 of 2020.doc acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Offcer and shall not tamper with the prosecution witness.
(v) Anticipatory bail Application No. 1081 of 2020 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
7. This order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned shall act on production by fax or email of the digitally signed copy of this order.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) Tikam 6/6