1 apl529.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.529/2016
India Infoline Investment Services Ltd.
Presently known as India Infoline Finance Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies
Act, having its office at IIFL House, Sun Infotech
Park, Road No. 16V, Plot No. B-23, MIDC,
Thane Industrial Area, Wagle Estate,
Thane - 400 604 .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. Shri Sunil s/o Dedoraji Jot,
aged about 52 years, Occ. Business,
2. Sau. Anjali w/o Sunil Jot,
aged about 47 years, Occ. Business,
3. Shri Girish s/o Vasantrao Langar,
aged about 46 years, Occ. Business,
All r/o Aarti Apartments, Plot No.20,
Kotwal Nagar Ring Road, Nagpur-22.
4. The State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Ambazari,
Nagpur. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. V. Rajurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. R. Tajne, Advocate for non applicant nos.1 to 3.
Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, A.P.P. for non applicant no.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 16.08.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:13:13 :::
2 apl529.16.odt
2. This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the non applicant no.1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 24.06.2016.
3. The non applicant nos.1 to 3 approached to the learned Court below for anticipatory bail since they were apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.123/2016 registered with Police Station, Ambazari, Nagpur for an offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 421, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Gopal Kurle, Area Collection Manager, India Infoline Finance Pvt. Ltd. The prosecution case as it is apparent from the report dated 09.06.2016 is as under:
M/s. Yogda Constructions, Swawlambi Nagar, Nagpur through its partner Girish Langar, Sunil Jot, Smt. Anjali Jot and Ravindra Lakudkar applied for loan for construction and development activities and towards the security they mortgaged property bearing plot No. 126, House No. 537 admeasuring 3569 Sq. Ft. of mouza Ajni, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur on 10.05.2011 and after verifying the documents and on completion of the necessary formalities, the company issued a demand draft of Rs.88,73,002/- to the said company. It is the main allegation that present non ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:13:13 ::: 3 apl529.16.odt applicant nos.1 to 3 and co-accused person without obtaining no objection certificate from the said company sold the flats constructed on the mortgaged plot to the prospective purchasers and did not repay the loan amount to the company. On the basis of the said report, the above said crime came to be registered.
3. The learned Court below in Misc. Criminal Application No.1383/2016 granted anticipatory bail in favour of the non applicant nos.1 to 3. In the said order, it was directed that the non applicant nos.1 to 3 shall attend Police Station, Ambazari on every Wednesday in between 6.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. till completion of the investigation and also imposed certain conditions.
4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Court below has considered the law laid down in Umashankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and anr; (2005) 10 SCC 336. It is also noted by the learned Judge that the arbitration proceedings were filed against the non applicants and M/s. Yogada Constructions in which they are partners vide Arbitration Proceeding Nos. 25/2014, 26/2014 and 27/2014. The learned ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:13:13 ::: 4 apl529.16.odt Arbitrator has passed the award on 29.09.2015. Though the award was passed in favour of the present applicant, for the reasons best known to the applicant, the execution proceedings were not filed. Further, the State has also not filed application for cancellation of the bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear to me that the custodial interrogation of the non applicant nos.1 to 3 was not necessary. The Court below, in my view, has exercised its discretion correctly warranting no interference by this Court. The application is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE kahale ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:13:13 :::