Chinmay P Gaonkar

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla & Ors. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan i/b Mr. Chinmay P. Gaonkar for the Applicants. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent – State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATED : 24th MAY, 2019. (VACATION COURT) P.C. : 1 I have perused the F.I.R. There are allegations in the F.I.R. that applicants have tendered forged documents to stake claim to their right in a Slum Rehabilitation Project. Prima facie there is nothing to show that the documents were genuine. However, the investigation is still in progress. Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to give details of the documents which were supplied by the applicants to the authorities. Time as prayed for is granted. 2 Stand over to 12.06.2019. (SARANG V. KOTWAL J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla And Ors Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent MS.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan i/by Chinmay P Gaonkar For Applicant V.V.Gangurde App for state. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 13th June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 17/06/2019 UNDER THE CAPTION OF URGENT CIRCULATIONS. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla And Ors Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra Respondent Ms. Ameeta kuttikrishanan i/b.Mr Chinmay P Gaonkar For Applicant. V.V.Gangurde App for state. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th June, 2019 P.C. : At the request of Applicant ,stand over to 19/06/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2019 Prakash Siddhnath Shukla & ors. .Applicants Vs. P.C. The State of Mahrashtra .Respondent Ms Ameeta Kuttikrishnan i/b. Mr. C. P. Gaonkar, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP, for the Respondent – State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 19.06.2019 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicants seek prearrest bail in connection with C. R. No. 8 of 2017 registered with the Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Without going into the merits of the allegation made by the Complainant, learned counsel for the Applicants relies on the Judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 924 of 2016 with Cri. Application No. 486 of 2016 ( Sayyed Anwar Ahmed & anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ) dated 27th & 28th February, 2017, to show that the complaint at the behest of the Complainant is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Applicants in particular, relies on para 28 of the said Judgment, wherein it is stated that in cases of SRA Schemes, in view of the law laid down in Shailesh Gandhi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, an aggrieved party must first approach the High Power Committee; and if the High Power Committee finds that there is an element of criminality or in cases of impersonation etc, it would ensure that the investigation is handed over to the appropriate agency. It is further stated that if a Complainant has any grievance about the names included in Annexure – II, he can always approach the High Power Committee and that the said Committee can direct setting of criminal law in motion, if it finds criminality in it. Learned counsel in view of the said decision submits that the complaint filed by the Complainant before the learned JMFC, pursuant to which an order under Section 156(3) came to be passed and the aforesaid C. R. came to be registered is untenable. Learned APP does not dispute the aforesaid. In the facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not warranted. Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the Applicants are granted prearrest bail on the following terms & conditions : O R D E R (i) In the event of arrest, the Applicants be enlarged on bail, on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each with one or two sureties in the like amount; (ii) The Applicants shall report to the investigating officer of the concerned police station as & when called for by the investigating officer. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)