Bombay High Court
Prashant Manohar Devnani And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
Dusane 1/7 903 ABA 940.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.940 OF 2019
1. Mr. Prashant Manohar Devnani
2. Smt. Devika Prashant Devnani .... Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents
Mr. Aabad H. Ponda i/by Karma Vivan for Applicants.
Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for State of Maharashtra
Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh for Respondent No. 2.
Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 5th August, 2021
P.C.:
1. The applicants, husband and wife are seeking pre-arrest bail
in Crime No. 37 of 2016 punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Samata Nagar Police
Station, Kandivali (East), Mumbai on 21 st January, 2016 at the behest of
one Rajesh Amrut Desai.
2. The case of the prosecution is, Complainant- Rajesh Desai
was in friendly terms with the present applicants. With an intent to
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2021 05:31:03 :::
Dusane 2/7 903 ABA 940.2019.doc
assist the applicants-accused in purchase of residential flat on 8 th June,
2011 handed over 1 Kg. gold, which was assured to be returned on/or
before 31st March, 2012 with added 100 gms. Neither the gold was
returned nor the amount was paid to the Complainant, the offence is
alleged.
3. The submissions of Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the applicants are, the applicants are already ordered to
be released on pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 528 of 2013, registered on
7th October, 2013 punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code at the behest of one Sharda Chaudhari. In the said offence, the
complainant is cited as one of the witness. The statement of
complainant in the said offence was recorded on 22 nd October, 2013
narrating aforesaid transaction of 1 Kg. gold. In the statement recorded
under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant
Rajesh Desai has reserved his right to take appropriate steps after
taking opinion of the legal experts and also common friend Shroff and
the present applicants. He would further invite attention of this Court
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2021 05:31:03 :::
Dusane 3/7 903 ABA 940.2019.doc
to the order dated 13th March, 2015 passed in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 1522 of 2013 by the Court of Sessions for Greater
Bombay ordering release of applicant No.1- Prashant Manohar Devnani,
wherein the specific statement of Mr. Rajesh Desai is referred to. In the
aforesaid backdrop, by drawing support of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and
Others, reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases, page 181, he
would urge that the present offence is in continuation of an earlier
offence being Crime No. 528 of 2013 and that being so, the applicants
cannot be arrested again in the present offence. His further contention
is that he has specifically denied the deal in question as has been
alleged by the complainant and relied on the entries in the Accounts,
Balance-sheet to that effect.
4. Mr. Ponda would urge that the applicants are already
protected by an order of this Court dated 18 th April, 2019 (Coram : A.S.
Gadkari, J.) and are enjoying ad-interim protection for more than two
years and that being so, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is
not required.
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2021 05:31:03 :::
Dusane 4/7 903 ABA 940.2019.doc
5. While countering aforesaid submissions, Mr. Veerdhaval
Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-
Complainant assisted learned APP, Ms. Kaushik would urge that the
account details of the complainant of the year 2011-2012 specifically
reflects the aforesaid transaction. According to him, even if earlier
offence being Crime No. 528 of 2013 was registered, the complainant
has reserved his right to take appropriate steps in the matter. Learned
counsel then would urge that the alleged offences against the
applicants was not investigated into by the Investigating Officer as
there was formal complaint from the complainant and that being so, the
application is liable to be rejected.
6. Considered rival submissions.
7. The registration of offence against the applicant- Prashant
Devnani being Crime No. 528 of 2013 for an offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code at the behest of Sharda Chaudhari
is not in dispute. The statement of complainant, Rajesh Desai was
recorded in the said offence under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2021 05:31:03 :::
Dusane 5/7 903 ABA 940.2019.doc
Code and the said statement was referred to by the Court while
granting pre-arrest bail to applicant No. 1 is not in dispute.
8. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, Mr. Ponda was
justified in inviting attention of this Court to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala
and Others (Cited supra). Though Mr. Ponda has stated that the
present offence is in continuation to the offence alleged in Crime No.
528 of 2013, however, without commenting on the merits of the
matter, particularly when the statement recorded under Section 161 of
Criminal Procedure Code of the complainant herein was not investigated
into while the applicant was charge-sheeted in Crime No. 528 of 2013.
Suffice it to say that the applicants have enjoyed interim protection
from this Court for last more than two years, the nature of transaction
appears to be the friendly one. The applicants have come out with a
case of denial of such transaction.
9. It is not in dispute that the Complainant has already initiated
civil suit for the issue as has been alleged in the complaint.
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2021 05:31:03 :::
Dusane 6/7 903 ABA 940.2019.doc
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, in my opinion, no purpose would
be served by rejecting the application of the applicants as the
transaction is claimed to be based on the account details of rival parties
and also assurance given by the applicants.
11. Keeping right of the prosecution agency to investigate even
the complaint of the complainant and to file if necessary supplementary
charge-sheet in Crime No. 528 of 2013 or otherwise a separate one, in
my opinion, the applicants deserve protection.
12. As such, ad-interim order passed by this Court on 18 th April,
2019 stands confirmed. Hence, following order :
ORDER
i) In the event of arrest in Crime No. 37 of 2016, registered
with Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivali (East), Mumbai, for
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, the applicants be released on bail on their executing
P.R. bonds of Rs.25,000/-/- each with one or more sureties in the like
amount;
Dusane 7/7 903 ABA 940.2019.doc
ii) The applicants are directed to attend the concerned Police
Station on 23rd, 25th and 27th August, 2021 between 10.00 am. to 12.00
pm. and thereafter as and when directed;
iii) The applicants shall not influence the prosecution witnesses
or tamper with the evidence.
13. The application is disposed of accordingly.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )
