Kawaljit Singh Walia vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 590 Bom

                                                                                      aba-2433-2019.doc

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2433 OF 2019
                                                      WITH
                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.970 OF 2019

                      Kawaljit Singh Walia                                     ...Applicant
                                 vs.
                      The State of Maharashtra and Another                     ...Respondents

                      Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w. Ms. Varsha Thorat and Ms. Vilasini
                      Balasubramanian, for the Applicant
                      Mrs. Jyoti Lohokare, APP for the Respondent-State.
                      Mr. Vikram Sutaria, for the Intervener.
VISHAL                                                CORAM :              N.J. JAMADAR, J.
SUBHASH
PAREKAR                                      ORDER RESERVED ON :           27th NOVEMBER, 2021
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
                                             ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :         18th JANUARY, 2022
Date: 2022.01.18
16:35:54 +0530


                                                         ---------------
                      ORDER:

1. The applicant, who is arraigned in C.R. No.174 of 2017

registered with Cuffe Parade police station, Mumbai for the offences

punishable under sections 120(b), 406, 409, 418, 420 read with 34

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the Penal Code) has preferred this

application for pre arrest bail.

2. Gautam Budhrani (hereinafter referred to as the "first

informant") lodged a report against the applicant and others with

the allegations that the applicant and other Directors of Commando

Caterers Private Limited (CCPL), in pursuance of a criminal

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 1/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

conspiracy, made a false representation that M/s. Sky High Dinner

LLP (SHD), of which the first informant was a partner, would be

appointed as a franchisee for hosting the dinner in the sky event at

Mumbai and Pune, and the 'Sky Goa Event LLP' would be appointed

as a franchisee to host the events in rest of Maharashtra and Goa.

The applicant deceived the abovenamed entities by inducing them to

part with a huge sum of Rs. 6,97,43,268/- over a period of time

commencing from 17th October, 2015 to 13th April, 2017. The

applicant misappropriated the aforesaid amounts and made no

arrangement to facilitate holding of the event 'Dinner in the Sky' by

the abovenamed entities. For the said event, the above entities were

made to incur huge expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,46,83,480/-, inter

alila, for obtaining requisite permissions from Municipal Corporation

and the State Government and also pay the fees to brand

ambassadors etc.

3. Thus, the applicant Kawaljit Walia and Lakhvir Kaur Walia and

Gursimran Singh Walia entered into a conspiracy to defraud M/s.

Sky High Dinner LLP (SHD) and Sky Goa Event LLP by making a

false representation that the dinner in the sky event would be held

in Mumbai, Pune and Goa by a Belgium based company 'Dinner in

the Sky' and duped the informant to the tune of Rs. 8,44,26,748/-.

Upon unearthing the fraud, the applicant flatly refused to repay the

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 2/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

amount. Hence, the first informant lodged report bearing C.R. No.

174 of 2017.

4. The applicant initially approached the learned Sessions Judge

for pre arrest bail. By an order dated 15th January, 2019, in

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2118 of 2018, the interim

protection was granted to the applicant. However, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay after hearing the

prosecution, by an order dated 19th October, 2019, was persuaded to

reject the application for pre arrest bail. The learned Additional

Sessions Jude was of the view that the first informant and his

associates were allegedly defrauded to the tune of Rs. 8,44,26,748/-,

a huge amount, and the custodial interrogation was required to

recover the documents which were allegedly in the custody of the

applicant and the said huge amount.

5. The applicant thus approached this Court by preferring the

instant application. By an order dated 8th November, 2019 this Court

granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to certain

conditions.

6. The substance of the application is that the applicant is the

Managing Director of CCPL. Dinner in the Sky is a Belgium based

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 3/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

company. The said company deals in the business of organizing

special dinners, in the air, at the height of 50 meters (164 feet)

above the ground, by raising a special platform. The said platform

bears TUV certification, which is one of the toughest Security

Standard Safety Certificate granted in the world. In June, 2008

CCPL become the Indian partner of the "Dinner in the Sky".

7. Mr. Shantanu Shashikant Lele, who represented Sparkin

Neurons, approached the Dinner in the Sky, by email dated 14 th

April, 2012 showing interest to organize an event in Pune and

Mumbai. Dinner in the Sky redirected Mr. Shantanu Lele to CCPL,

who was stated to be the exclusive Indian partner of the said

company.

8. After exchange of correspondence between CCPL and Mr.

Shantanu Lele, initially a MOU was executed on 20th January, 2015

between CCPL and M/s. Showtime Events and Marketing and certain

terms and conditions were agreed upon. Certain payments were

made to CCPL in various installments.

9. Eventually, the first informant came in the frame. An entity

M/s. Sky High Dinner LLP (SHD), represented by the first informant

Gautam Budhrani, Mr. Shashikant Lele (M/s. Showtime Events and

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 4/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

Marketing) and Mr Gaurav Gite, was formed and MOU was executed

between CCPL and M/s. Sky High Dinner LLP (SHD) on 2 nd April,

2016. Reciprocal obligations were incorporated in the said

agreement, including the expenses to be incurred by SHD, the

responsibility to be discharged by CCPL and resolution of the

disputes through arbitration.

10. It is the case of the applicant that scheduled events could not

be organized on account of failure on the part of the SHD and its

partners to honour the commitment to pay the amount upfront, to

obtain the consent of Mumbai Indians, an IPL franchise, for

participation in the event and the resultant cancellation of the event

leading to loss to CCPL and, thus, the CCPL was justified in

withholding the amount as it was agreed between the parties that in

the event of failure on the part of the SHD and its associates, the

amount already paid would not be refunded.

11. The applicant further avers that the first information report

came to be lodged as a counterblast to the complaints lodged by

CCPL against the first informant and the partners of SHD under

section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 consequent to

failure to meet the demand to pay the amount covered by the

cheques drawn in favour of CCPL. No offence is prima facie made out.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                   5/21
                                                                 aba-2433-2019.doc

The first informant has made an endevour to give a colour of

criminal prosecution to a purely civil dispute. In any event, the

alleged offences revolve around the documents executed between

the parties and the payments which are through banking channels.

Thus, to facilitate further investigation the custodial interrogation of

the applicant is not at all warranted. Hence, the applicant deserves

to be enlarged on bail, in the event of arrest.

12. The prosecution has resisted the prayer for pre arrest bail.

13. In the light of the aforesaid facts and material on record, I have

heard Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs.

Jyoti Lohokare, learned APP and Mr. Vikram Sutaria, learned

counsel for the first informant, who has taken out the Interim

Application No. 970 of 2019 seeking to intervene in the application,

and also prayed for the dismissal of the application.

14. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the applicant would urge that

in the backdrop of the transactions, which have unfolded over a

period of almost five years, during the course of which agreements

were executed by and between the parties and correspondence was

exchanged, it becomes clear that the dispute is purely of a civil

nature. The entire exercise of lodging the first information report

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 6/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

against the applicant and Directors of CCPL is actuated by a design

to bring the applicant to terms. Mr. Kadam would further urge that

the material on record indicates that the events could not be

organized on account of failure on the part of the first informant and

his associates, to honour the commitment of payments, as agreed,

and obtain the necessary consent and approvals for holding the

event. The question as to whether the applicant is justified in

withholding the amount which has been paid by the first informant

and his associates, constitutes a pure civil dispute.

15. Laying emphasis on the fact that the instant first information

report came to be lodged long after the applicant initiated

proceedings under section 138 of N.I.Act against the first informant

and the partners of SHD at Chandigarh, Mr. Kadam would submit

that the instant prosecution is nothing but a counterblast to the said

action initiated by the applicant. To bolster up these submissions,

Mr. Kadam, took the Court through the series of correspondence

exchanged between the parties.

16. In opposition, Mrs. Lohokare, learned APP, would urge that

the applicant and co-accused have duped the first informant and his

associates in pursuance of a well designed conspiracy. The first

informant and his associates were made to part with huge amount

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 7/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

by making promises which the the applicant had no intention to

perform. To facilitate further investigation, especially the recovery

of the relevant documents and the huge amount, custodial

interrogation is necessary. Mr. Lohokare, further submitted that the

money trial has revealed that the amount received from the first

informant and his associates has been utilized by the applicant and

his associates for personal use and there is no material to show that

the said amount was transferred to the parent Belgium company as

alleged. In the circumstances, the applicant does not deserve the

exercise of discretion in his favour.

17. Mr. Sutaria, learned counsel for the intervener/ first

informant, stoutly submitted that the facts of the case indicate that

the intention of the applicant was dishonest since the inception of

the transaction. The copy of the agreement which was executed by

parent Belgium company in favour of CCPL, allegedly appointing the

later as its partner in India, did not see the light of the day. On the

contrary, correspondence exchanged between the parties indicates

that the applicant had at no point of time obtained the confirmation

of the Belgium company for hosting the event in India. Nor the

material indicates that any preparations were made to either bring

the crew to India or transport the equipment required to set up the

platform. Therefore, a clear case of cheating is made out.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                    8/21
                                                             aba-2433-2019.doc

18. Mr. Sautaria, further submitted that the economic offences

stand as a class apart and where grave allegations of financial fraud

are made, the exercise of the discretion under section 438 of the

Code is not warranted. Refuting the submission on behalf of the

applicant that the offences revolve around the documents, Mr.

Sutaria urged that there can be no substitute for custodial

interrogation where such egregious fraud is, prima facie, made out.

Mr. Sutaria, lastly submitted that the fact remains that the first

informant and his associates did not get any opportunity to organize

any event, despite parting with the huge sum of Rs. 8 Crores. In this

view of the matter, according to Mr. Sutaria, the custodial

interrogation of the applicant is indispensable.

19. To start with, few facts which appear to be un-controverted.

The applicant claims to be the Manager Director of CCPL. The

transaction has its genesis in an event which was to be organized as

a part of the concept of "Dinner in the Sky"; dinner at an elevated

pedestal. There is not much controversy over the fact that initially

an understanding was arrived at between CCPL and M/s. Showtime

Events and Marketing, through Mr. Shantanu Lele on 20 th January,

2015. Likewise, the execution of the MOU dated 2 nd April, 2016 is not

in contest. Indisputably, the said MOU was executed by the applicant

in the capacity of Managing Director of CCPL and for SHD, the

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 9/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

signatories were, the first informant Gautam Budhrani, Gaurav Gite

and Shantanu Lele. By and large there is not much controversy over

the fact that the sum of Rs. 6,97,43,268/- came to be credited to the

account of CCPL/applicant over a period of time. It is also not in

contest that the applicant lodged complaints against the partners of

SHD for dishonour of the cheques drawn on 5 th May, 2016, 30th May,

2016, 30th June, 2016 and 30th July, 2016 for varying amounts in the

Court of learned Magistrate at Chandigarh.

20. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant is that, the

applicant and other Directors of CCPL dishonestly induced the first

informant and his associates to part with the amount without any

intention of organizing the events as promised. The amounts so

credited in the account of CCPL/applicant were systematically

diverted to the personal accounts of the applicant and his associates.

The fact that no tangible effort was made by the applicant to either

bring the crew from the parent company to hold the event or

transport the requisite equipment indicates that the intention of the

applicant was dishonest since the inception of the transaction.

21. It is trite that mere failure to perform a contractual obligation

does not amount to an offence of cheating. To bring the act or

omission within the tentacles of offence of cheating, where the case

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 10/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

rests on failure to perform contractual obligation, it has to be shown

that the intention of the accused was dishonest since inception of the

transaction and the agreement, in whatever form, was an

instrument to defraud the victim. In a given set of facts, an act or

omission on the part of a party may give rise to civil action as well as

furnish a ground for criminal prosecution. It is not an immutable

rule of law that a purely civil dispute does not involve any element of

criminality, in all the cases. However, the distinction between a mere

failure to perform the promise, and inducing a party to enter into a

transaction with dishonest intention needs to be kept in view.

22. In the case at hand, it is imperative to note that the parties

were pursuing transaction for almost five years before lodging of the

report by the first informant. The first communication, emanating

from Shantanu Lele in the form of an email to the "Dinner in the

Sky", was dated 14th April, 2012. Mr. Lele evinced interest to get in

touch with India partners of the said company and understand how

the said concept could be brought into Pune / Mumbai. By a reply Mr.

Lele was informed that his request would be transferred to the

exclusive Indian partner of the said company. On the following day, a

mail was addressed by the applicant to Mr. Lele claiming that CCPL

was Indian partner for the Dinner in the Sky. Initially, MOU was

executed between CCPL and M/s. Showtime Events and Marketing

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 11/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

on 20th January, 2015. The material on record further indicates that

certain payments were made to CCPL; whereas cheques drawn in

favour of CCPL, in the intervening period, were also dishonored.

Subsequently, after the first informant came in the frame, MOU

dated 2nd April, 2016 came to be executed.

23. The terms of payment to be made by SHD were incorporated in

paragraph 1.1.1. The proforma invoices raised by CCPL and the

cheques drawn by SHD, against those invoices, were specifically

mentioned in the said clause. The obligations of CCPL as regards the

events, were stipulated in paragraph 1.5. The corresponding

responsibilities of SHD were stipulated in paragraph 1.6. Under

clause 5.0 the parties, specifically agreed as regards payment

schedule of franchisee fee and two DITS platform (table). It was

acknowledged by CCPL that 250 lakhs had already been received as

advance. Two more cheques were drawn under the said agreement

towards the franchisee fee. Under clause 5.1.4.E to 5.1.4.I it was

further acknowledged that towards franchisee fee three cheques for

Rs.50 lakhs each and two cheques for Rs. 2,00,25,000/- each, were

drawn. Clause 11 dealing with "term and termination", inter alia,

recorded that if the event could not be organized as agreed CCPL

shall not be obliged to refund any part of the amount that has been

paid to it. Clause 13.0 provided for resolution of dispute through

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 12/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

arbitration by a retired Judge of Punjab and Harayana High Court.

24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid stipulations in the MOU, it is

pertinent to note that, the trigger for the dispute between the parties

seems to be organizing the event involving the participation of

Mumbai Indians, IPL franchisee. The communication dated 5 th April,

2016 addressed by the first informant to the applicant indicates that

the applicant was requested to postpone the travel plans of Belgium

team. The first informant sought to assert that the event was not to

be treated as cancelled. In response, the applicant asserted that the

cancellation charges were 100%, as per the terms of the agreement

between the parties. There was also dispute as to whether the

indemnity should be furnished by the Belgium based partners

"Dinner in the Sky".

25. In the aforesaid context, in the first information report, the

first informant alleged that on 2nd April, 2016 three post dated

cheques drawn for Rs. 50 lakhs each, one cheque drawn for Rs.

1,25,00,000/- and two cheques drawn for Rs. 2,00,25,000/- each

were delivered by way of security. When the first informant insisted

for indemnity about the security of the guests who would participate

in the event of Dinner in the Sky, the applicant demanded a sum of

Rs. 1.33 Crore for obtaining the indemnity from Belgium company.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                    13/21
                                                            aba-2433-2019.doc

By 16th April, 2016 the first informant transferred the sum of Rs.

1.33 Cores. On 20th April, 2016, the first informant claimed to have

deposited a sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores in the account of CCPL after

negotiation for appointing SHD as franchisee for rest of India.

Thereafter the applicant declined to give indemnity. At the same

time, on account of policy of the Government of Maharashtra the

scheduled IPL matches in Maharashtra were cancelled. Though the

first informant and his associates did not owe any amount to the

applicant, the later deposited the aforesaid cheques which were

delivered by way of security and when those cheques were

dishonored, on presentment, lodged false complaints.

26. The first informant further alleges that a meeting was held on

12th April, 2017 at Chandigarh for which a sum of Rs. 55 lakhs was

demanded by and paid to the applicant as a pre-condition. In the said

meeting draft agreement, was shared by the applicant. Since its

terms were onerous, the first informant and his associates refused to

execute the said agreement and demanded the refund of Rs. 55

lakhs paid on 13th April, 2017 and all the amounts which were paid

to the applicant till date. However, the applicant did not refund any

amount.

27. The aforesaid allegations in the first information report, if

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 14/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

considered in the light of the sequence of the events, prima facie,

indicate that a dispute arose between the parties over the causes for

not holding the event as planed in the month of April, 2016. The first

informant claimed that the applicant failed to get the indemnity. The

applicant, in turn, alleged that there was no confirmation about the

participation of Mumbai Indians and all the arrangements made by

the applicant for flying the overseas crew to India and transport the

equipment were rendered futile.

28. Secondly, the dispute arose between the parties over the

payment of franchisee fees. The first informant claimed that the

cheques, which are the subject matter of the prosecutions under

section 138 of N.I.Act, in the Courts at Chandigarh were drawn by

way of security only. Clause 5 referred above, suggests to that

contrary, it indicates the three cheques drawn for Rs. 50 lakhs and

two cheques for Rs. 2,00,25,000/- were issued towards part payment

of franchise fee. What is of significance is the fact that even after the

initiation of those prosecutions, there was a meeting between the

parties, and an endevour was made to organize events. First

information report further indicates that there was no consensus

over the terms of the fresh agreement to be executed between the

parties. The first informant and his associates thought the

conditions to be onerous.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                   15/21
                                                             aba-2433-2019.doc

29. The allegations against the applicant are required to be

considered in the aforesaid context. First and foremost, the

communication made by Shantanu Lele in the year 2012 was not

directly to the applicant. It is not the allegation that the applicant

approached the associates of the first informant and induced them

to enter into the transaction. Secondly, the parties engaged in

deliberations and communications from the year 2012 till the

execution of MOU on 2nd April, 2016. Thirdly, the payments were

made and cheques were drawn in accordance with the bargain

reduced into writing. As indicated above, the question essentially

revolves around the party who was at fault for not holding the event.

Whether the applicant is liable to refund the amount paid to him or

the applicant is justified in withholding the amount on the ground

that it was agreed that the amount so paid would be non-refundable

are the matters which warrant adjudication. However, in my

considered view, the failure to refund the amount would not justify

an inference that the intention of the applicant was dishonest since

the inception of transaction, when there is a competing claim based

on the contract between the parties.

30. Indisputably the first informant and his associates have parted

with a substantial amount. The claim of the applicant to withhold the

said amount may be contentious. Eventually, it may turn out that

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 16/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

the applicant is not entitled to retain the said amount. However, the

crucial question is whether there is such an element of criminality

as would warrant the custodial interrogation of the applicant.

31. Mr. Sutaria, the learned counsel for the first informant placed

reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State

vs. Anil Sharma1; Jay Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and

Another2; Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others3 to

bolster up the submission that the custodial interrogation is

warranted for effective interrogation and the anticipatory bail can

be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is

prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been roped in

the crime and would not misuse the liberty. Reliance was also placed

on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ashok Motilal Saraogi

vs. State of Maharashtra4 and Harshad S. Mehta vs. Union of India

and Ors.5.

32. As a second limb, Mr. Sutaria urged that economic offences

constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different

approach in the matter of bail. To lend support to this submission,

Mr. Sutaria placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court 1 (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 187.

2 (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 379.

3 (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 305.

4 2016 (1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 414 5 1992 Cri.L.J. 4032.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                17/21
                                                                      aba-2433-2019.doc

in the cases of State of Bihar and Anr. vs. Amit Kumar 6; Y.S. Jagan

Mohan Reddy vs. C.B.I.7; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI8 and SFIO vs.

Nitin Johari9.

33. The necessity of custodial interrogation to facilitate effective

investigation can hardly be overemphasized. However, the question

as to whether in a given case custodial interrogation is warranted is

essentially rooted in facts. If the offence primarily revolves around

documents and all the material facts have already been brought to

the notice of the investigating agency, custodial interrogation may

not seem necessary. It thus turns upon the facts of a given case.

34. The submission on behalf of the first informant that

anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional cases, however,

does not merit acceptance. In the case of Sushila Aggarwal and

Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another10 the Constitution Bench

of the Supreme Court, dispelled the insistence on such requirement

as not in consonance with law. The principles were culled out in

paragraph 52.3 to 52.7 as under:

52.3 The accused is not obliged to make out a special case for grant of anticipatory bail; reading an otherwise wide power would fetter the Court's discretion. Whenever

6 (2017) 13 SCC 751.

7    (2013) 7 SCC 439.
8    (2013) 7 SCC 466
9    (2019) 9 SCC 165.
10   (2020) 5 SCC 1

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                          18/21
                                                                         aba-2433-2019.doc

an application (for relief under section 438) is moved, discretion has to be always exercised judiciously, and with caution, having regard to the facts of every case.

52.4 While the power of granting anticipatory bail is not ordinary, at the same time, its use is not confined to exceptional cases.

52.5 It is not justified to require courts to only grant anticipatory bail in special cases made out by accused, since the power is extraordinary, or that several considerations- spelt out in Section 437 - or other considerations, are to be kept in mind.

52.6 Overgenerous introduction (or reading into) of constraints on the power to grant anticipatory bail would render it constitutionally vulnerable. Since fair procedure is part of Article 21, the Court should not throw the provision open to challenge "by reading words in it which are not to be found therein"

52.7 There is no "inexorable rule" that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the applicant is the target of mala fides. There are several relevant considerations to be factored in, by the Court, while considering whether to grant or refuse anticipatory bail. Nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the accused's presence not being secured during trial; a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses might be tampered with, and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations. A person seeking relief (of anticipatory bail) continues to be a man presumed to be innocent.

35. The aforesaid pronouncement enunciates that power to grant

anticipatory bail is not confined to exceptional cases. Nor is it the

requirement of law that anticipatory bail can be granted only when

special case is made out by the accused. There is no "inexorable"

rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the applicant is

the target of malafide.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                             19/21
                                                                      aba-2433-2019.doc

36. As regards the submission on behalf of the first informant that

economic offences constitute a class apart and they are required to

be approached in a cautious manner in the matter of grant of

anticipatory bail, there can be no quarrel with the said proposition.

However, it is necessary to note that the cases relied upon by the

first informant in which aforesaid proposition was enunciated arose

out of the financial frauds committed by the functionaries holding

public offices or the public servants. Evidently, different

considerations come into play in such cases. In contrast, in the case

at hand, as observed above, the dispute has its genesis in the

commercial transaction between the parties. A period of almost

more than nine years has elapsed since the inception of negotiation

for the transaction between the parties. The applicant, in the

intervening period, has lodged prosecutions against the first

informant and his associates. In this view of the matter, the fact that

there is an allegation of defrauding the first informant, of a huge

amount, does not ipso facto dis-entitle the applicant from the

exercise of the discretion.

37. It is imperative to note that the transactions have been

effected by the parties through banking channels. There are

documents to evidence the transactions as well as the exchange of

correspondence. Mr. Kadam, on instructions, submitted that the

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 20/21 aba-2433-2019.doc

agreement between the parties has been placed on the record of the

Court, at Chandigarh. In the circumstances of the case, the

possibility of tampering with the evidence and fleeing away from

justice appears to be remote. It does not appear that the applicant

has no roots in the society. Nonetheless the concern of the

prosecution can be addressed by directing the applicant to cooperate

with the investigation.

38. For the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded to exercise the

discretion in favour of the applicant and confirm the order of interim

bail granted by this Court on 8th November, 2019.

Hence, the following order.

                                            ORDER

1]       The application stands allowed.
2]       The interim order passed by this Court on 8 th November, 2019

stands confirmed on the terms and conditions incorporated therein. 3] In addition, the applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency and appear before the investigating officer as and when directed by the investigating officer. 4] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses.

5] The applicant shall attend the proceeding before the jurisdictional Magistrate, in the event the charge-sheet is lodged, regularly.

                                                      (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                                 21/21