Parumeeta Vijjan Chakravarti vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 16937 Bom

                                                                    3 APL 251-20 & APPLN 380-19



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2020

                   Sneha @ Anita Vedpathak/Deshpande              .. Applicant
                        V/s.
SNEHA
NITIN              The State of Maharashtra                       ..Respondent
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
                                                        WITH
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2021.12.06
                                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 380 OF 2019
16:57:29 +0530

                   Parumeeta Vijjan Chakravarti                   .. Applicant
                        V/s.

                   The State of Maharashtra                       ..Respondent

                                                    ----
                   Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w. Ms. Sakshi Jha, for the Applicant in
                   APL.251/2020.
                   Mr. Mubin Solkar i/b. Zara S. Salati and Aamir Sopariwala, for the
                   Applicant in Cri. Application No.380/2019.
                   Mr. R. A. Shaikh, Mr. Mohsin N. Panjwani and Mr. Sharif Khan, for
                   Respondent No.2 in Cri. Application No.380/2019, Respondent
                   No.3 in APL/251/2020.
                   Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent / State.

                                                          ----
                                                   CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

                                                   DATE    : 06 DECEMBER, 2021

                   P.C.

1. The challenge in these applications is to the order passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, thereby cancelling bail granted to the

applicants by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge by

Sneha Chavan page 1 of 4 3 APL 251-20 & APPLN 380-19

the impugned Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2019 while partly

allowing Revision Application No. 209 of 2018 has directed the

applicants/accused to appear before the learned Magistrate and to

surrender themselves within 15 days and further granting liberty to

the applicants to file an application for regular bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the

learned APP and the learned counsel for the

respondent/complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that there

were Consent Terms entered into by the parties. The learned

Counsel has then referred to an undertaking dated 12.02.2021

which was proposed to be filed by the Applicant Parumeeta

Chakravarti in Criminal Application No. 380 of 2019 undertaking to

pay Rs.35,00,000/- before this court within two working days of the

filing of the said undertaking on 12.02.2021. It is pointed out that

the Applicant Parumeeta Chakravarti had further undertaken to

deposit an amount of Rs.2,57,47,371/- as detailed in the said

undertaking. The learned counsel for both the Applicants have then

referred to a joint undertaking filed by the Applicant Parumeeta

Chakravarti and Applicant Sneha Vedpathak by which they have

Sneha Chavan page 2 of 4 3 APL 251-20 & APPLN 380-19

again undertaken to deposit an amount of Rs.2,92,47,371/- before

this Court as detailed in the said undertaking. That undertaking

dated 01.12.2021 is taken on record and marked "X" for

identification. It is thus submitted that the Applicants have bonafide

intention to deposit/pay the amount.

4. The learned APP and the learned counsel for the Respondent /

complainant has pointed out that the bail which was earlier granted

by the learned Magistrate, was on the basis of the earlier Consent

Terms, which did not materialise. It is pointed out that there was no

order granting bail to the Applicants, which was passed on merits.

It is therefore, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was

justified in cancelling the bail.

5. Both the learned counsel for the Applicants at this stage on

instructions from the Applicants stated that Applicants are willing to

go back to the learned Magistrate to surrender and to seek regular

bail on merits, if a reasonable time is granted to the Applicants.

6. In view of this specific statement, it was submitted by the

learned APP and the learned counsel for the

respondent/complainant that appropriate orders may be passed.

     Sneha Chavan                                                page 3 of 4
                                                   3 APL 251-20 & APPLN 380-19

7. In such circumstances, the Criminal Applications are disposed

of. The Applicants are granted two weeks time to surrender

before the learned Magistrate and to apply for regular bail.

8. If upon such surrender the applicants seek regular bail, the

learned Magistrate shall decide the same on its own merits and in

accordance with law after hearing the parties.

9. The rival contentions of the parties are left open.

10. The interim relief which was granted by order dated

18.09.2019 (in Cr. Application No. 380/2019) and interim relief

granted on 05.02.2020 (in Cr. Application No.251/2020) are hereby

continued for a period of two weeks.

                                        (C.V. BHADANG, J.)




      Sneha Chavan                                                 page 4 of 4