Sahil Sandeep Arora vs State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 8183 Bom

                                         1/4               25 wp 1863.22.docx


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               Writ Petition No.1863 of 2022

 Sahil Sandeep Arora                                         ...     Petitioner
       v/s.
 The State of Maharashtra & ors.                            ...        Respondents

                                          With
                         Interim Application No. 2373 of 2022
                                           In
                             Writ Petition No.1863 of 2022

 Mr Vinay Kumar Ashok Kumar Agarwal                         ...        Applicant

 In the matter between

 Sahil Sandeep Arora                                         ...     Petitioner
       v/s.
 The State of Maharashtra & ors.                            ...        Respondents


 Mr Ravi Kadam, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Bhure, Mr.
 Waseem Pangarkar, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Mahesh Ahire, Ms.
 Poornima Eapen i/b. MZM Legal LLP for petitioner in wp
 1863/22 and applicant in IA 2373/23.

 Mr Waseem Pangarkar, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Mahesh Ahire, Ms
 Poornima Eapen i/b MZM Legal LLP for the petitioner in wp
 2376/23.

 Mr J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
 Mr Subir Kumar a/w Syed Ahmed i/b. SDS Advocates for respondent
 No.2 in wp1863/2022.



::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2023                      ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2023 22:18:21 :::
                                         2/4               25 wp 1863.22.docx


                               CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                       R.N.LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 9th August 2023

P.C. :

We have heard the respective counsel for the parties for quite sometime.

2. The learned APP has produced before us in a sealed envelope the investigation papers qua the role attributed to the petitioner-Mr. Sahil Arora in WP No.1863/2022. We have carefully perused the investigation carried out against the petitioner.

3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is economic in nature wherein cheating is alleged to the tune of Rs.600 Crores. The petitioner, an employee of Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd., a multi national company, allegedly committed the economic offence and the very conduct of the petitioner is also objected by his own employer viz. Dentsu Communications India Pvt. Ltd., qua the transaction in question.

4. This Court vide order dated 27th April 2023 has permitted the investigating officer to carry out further investigation and directed that

3/4 25 wp 1863.22.docx

no coercive steps be taken in the matter.

5. The learned APP and the learned counsel for respondent No.2- Complainant has prayed for vacation of interim-relief.

6. The fact remains that in judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of Maharashtra & others 1 the Apex Court has laid down parameters to be considered qua the grant of the interim-relief in the nature of stay to the investigation, no coercive action etc. The parameters laid down in paragraph-80 are duly brought to our notice by Mr Ravi Kadam, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

7. The fact remains that there is a blanket order of no coercive action against the petitioner which is not in tune with observations in the matter of Neeharika (supra).

8. In this background, having regard to the investigation papers which are produced before us as regards the investigation carried out against the petitioner so as to demonstrate the role played by the petitioner in the commission of serious economic offence in question, the parameters laid down by Apex Court in Neeharika(supra), we deem it appropriate to vacate the interim order.

 1    2021 SCC OnLine SC 315





                                      4/4                25 wp 1863.22.docx

9. We relegate the petitioner, if so desires, to approach before the Competent Court for grant of protection from arrest which proceedings be decided without being influenced by the vacation of the interim- relief of no coercive steps.

10. Since the petitioner can either apply for grant of protection from arrest or may question this order before appropriate Court, we deem it appropriate to extend the protection in favour of the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today.

11. Considering the present workload, we deem it appropriate to defer the hearing of present petition, though insisted by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner to be heard at this stage, to 3rd October 2023.

12. To be heard alongwith Writ Petition (st) No.14593/2023 and Writ Petition No.2376/2023 which is already tagged.

         R.N. LADDHA, J.                        NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
 Lata Panjwani, P.S.