Bombay High Court
Veeranna Mahatappa Havannavar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 February, 2021
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/5 21-ABA-2817-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2817 OF 2019
1. Veeranna Mahatappa Havannavar
2. Vishal Babanrao Shelke .... Applicants
versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr.A.B. Tajane, Advocate for Applicants.
• Ms.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C. :
1. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.184/2012 registered with Daund Police
Station, dated 16/09/2012, under sections 420 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The FIR is lodged by one Kisan Bamble. He has stated
that on 01/05/2010 he was approached by three persons
namely Annappa Shivmurti Hippargi (Police Constable), Ramdas
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:31:06 :::
2/5 21-ABA-2817-19.odt
Khandu Girme (Police Constable) and Dinkar Pandurang
Suryavanshi (API). They were all police officers. They told the
first informant that they were relatives of Applicant No.1, who
was constructing a building at survey No.87, Sasane Nagar,
Mohammadwadi Road, Hadapsar, Pune by the name 'Shivparvati
Apartment', through Viranna Patil Constructions and Developers.
They represented to the informant that since the Applicants
were their relative, they could get concessional rates for the flats
from him. Based on their representation, the informant from
time to time gave them Rs.11,56,000/-. Subsequently, the flat
was not given. There are allegations that the accused had given
the informant receipt in the name of 'Creative Infrastructure,
Promoters & Builders'. The receipt was forged and it was not
issued by the builder i.e. the Applicant No.1. The informant
realized that he was cheated and on this basis FIR was lodged.
3. Heard Mr.G.S. Godbole, learned counsel for the
Applicants and Ms.A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:31:06 :::
3/5 21-ABA-2817-19.odt
4. Mr.Godbole submitted that the other accused who had
actually taken money were prosecuted in the Court of J.M.F.C.,
Daund, in R.C.C. No.113/13. All of them were acquitted by
Judgment and Order dated 26/05/2015. Thereafter the
Applicants were harassed by the police on the threats of arrest.
He submitted that the FIR does show that the money was not
taken by the present Applicants. The original culprits were the
accused who were already acquitted. He therefore submitted
that in this view of the matter, custodial interrogation of the
Applicants would be absolutely unjustified.
5. Learned APP though could not really justify necessity
of custody, he opposed application based on the allegations
made in the FIR. She submitted that ultimately the amounts
were taken in the name of the present Applicants. Therefore
they are involved.
6. I have considered these submissions and in particular I
have perused the judgment and order referred hereinabove,
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:31:06 :::
4/5 21-ABA-2817-19.odt
whereby all the other accused namely Annappa Shivmurti
Hippargi, Dinkar Pandurang Suryavanshi and Ramdas Khandu
Girme were acquitted. In those proceedings present Applicants
were shown as absconding accused. It is alleged that they were
associated with a construction company, which was to construct
the building. Perusal of that judgment shows that the first
informant had entered into compromise with the accused who
had actually taken money from them. During the trial the
prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and therefore those
accused were acquitted. There is a clear finding that there was
no evidence before the Court that the informant had given
Rs.11,56,000/- to the accused facing the trial and that he had
suffered loss and that the money was misappropriated. On this
clear finding now it is really not justifiable for the police to seek
arrest of present Applicants. The entire transaction is from the
year 2010. The other accused were acquitted in the year 2013.
The present Applicants are on interim protection pursuant to the
order passed by this Court since December 2019. The informant
had already entered into compromise with the accused who
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 21:31:06 :::
5/5 21-ABA-2817-19.odt
actually accepted the amount. In this view of the matter,
custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not justifiable at all.
They are required to be protected by an order of anticipatory
bail.
7. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with
C.R.No.184/2012 registered with Daund Police
Station, the Applicants are directed to be
released on bail on their furnishing PR bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) each, with one or two sureties each, in the
like amount.
(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
