Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6437 Bom

     2023:BHC-AS:18596-DB



                       (908)-WP-2234-23.doc.


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          Digitally
                                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          signed by
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2023.07.07
          15:46:47
                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.2234 OF 2023
          +0530




                       Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani                                     ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                               ..Respondents

                       Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Counsel a/w Karan Kadam, Shantanu
                       Phanse, Sudhanva Bedekar i/by Ketan Dhavle, for the Petitioner.
                       Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State.
                       Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, for the Respondent No.2/ED.
                       Ms. Minal Chandnani, for the Intervenor.

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

DATE : 6th JULY, 2023

P.C.

1. Leave to amend cause-title so as to delete the name of respondent No.2, however, it is clarified that respondent No.2 is continued in the array of respondents in his official capacity.

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2./ED and learned APP for respondent No.1/ State.

3. The law point which is sought to be canvassed is that the ingredients of Section 378 of the IPC which defines the offence,

BGP. 1 of 3

(908)-WP-2234-23.doc.

cannot be inferred or said to be satisfied in the case in hand. According to Mr. Ravi Kadam the allegations against the petitioner are that of illegally procuring photocopies of the statement from the office of respondent No.2 with the help of domestic aid and also the employees of the respondent No.2.

4. In this background, his contentions are, the offence at the most can be said to be covered under Section 43 of the IT Act.

5. Relying on the division bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Gagan Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 336, he would urge that the petitioner is entitled for similar relief as that of granted by this Court to the Bablu Sonkar in Criminal Writ Petition No.1305 of 2023 wherein this Court passed a reasoned order.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Mr. H. S. Venegavkar seeks time to prepare and address. According to him, a similarly placed person, namely Mahadev @ Bhalla Sable who is petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.1306 of 2023 is already relegated by this Court to the Trial Court for consideration a prayer for interim relief. As such, he would urge that the Court should not be granting interim relief in this matter.

7. The fact remains that the petitioner is in custody of the ED which is not the case about the co-accused/Mahadev @ Bhalla

BGP. 2 of 3

(908)-WP-2234-23.doc.

Sable in Writ Petition No.1306 of 2023. Rather the case of the present petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused - Bablu Sonkar.

8. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to tag the hearing of the present writ petition with Writ Petition No.1305 of 2023.

9. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 21st August, 2023.

10. In the meantime, interim relief granted to Bablu Sonkar in paragraphs 6 and 7 of order dated 6th April, 2023 is extended to the present petitioner.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.]                             [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                                    3 of 3