Bombay High Court
India Infoline Investment ... vs Ravindra S/O Gulabrao Lakudkar ... on 16 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 apl528.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.528/2016
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. Ravindra s/o Gulabrao Lakudkar,
aged about 43 years, Occ. Business,
r/o Plot No. 20, Prithviraj Nagar,
Beltarodi, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Ambazari,
Nagpur. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. V. Rajurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. U. P. Dabale, Advocate for non applicant no.1.
Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
2 apl528.16.odt
3. The non applicant no.1 approached to the learned
Court below for anticipatory bail since he was apprehending his
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
applicant no.1 and co-accused persons 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
3 apl528.16.odt
of the said report, the above said crime came to be registered.
4. The learned Court below in Misc. Criminal Application
No.1396/2016 granted anticipatory bail in favour of the non
applicant no.1. In the said order, it was directed that the non
applicant no.1 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.
5. 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 applicant and M/s. Yogada
Constructions in which he is partner vide Arbitration Proceeding
Nos. 25/2014, 26/2014 and 27/2014. The learned 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 an application for cancelaltion of bail.
4 apl528.16.odt
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is
clear to me that the custodial interrogation of the non applicant
no.1 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
