Mzm Legal

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2015 James D'Souza ..Applicant. versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr. Parvez Memon with Mr. Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for the Applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, Addl. P.P. for the State. ..... CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. (VACATION COURT) 19th May 2015. P.C. : The Applicant has been charged with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the Deccan Police Station vide F.I.R. No.98 of 2015 dated 2nd April, 2015. It is the case of the complainant that she was working with the travel agency viz. Sudin Travel Agency, Karve Road, Pune. The Applicant on telephone approached her and pretended that he is the owner of Dark Oranges Hospitality company and regularly requires substantial quantity of air tickets. Under that pretext, the Applicant got booking of 20 air tickets, domestic and international, from the complainant. It is further the case of the Applicant that the total value of the said tickets was Rs.7,50,000/-. Despite repeated requests from the complainant, the Applicant did not pay the said amount and on some or the other pretext avoided to pay the same. It was further revealed to the complaint that the company viz. Dark Oranges Hospitality was not in existence at the address mentioned therein. She, therefore, lodged a complaint with the police. The police are investigating the said crime. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the present case is of civil nature and it is only because of the dispute about the quantum of amount to be paid to the complainant, the amount remained to be paid. He expressed his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove his bonafide. It appears to me that the offence is simpliciter under Section 420 and the Applicant has expressed his desire to prove his bonafide by depositing the disputed amount in this Court. On this ground, I am inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail upto 11th June, 2015 on the following conditions : i) The Applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in the Registry of this Court within a period of three days from today. Subject to deposit of the said amount by the Applicant, in the event of arrest, the Applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount; ii) The Applicant shall attend the Deccan Police Station, Pune as and when called for between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.; iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and/or shall not indulge into any act amounting to tampering of evidence; iv) In case, the Applicant fails to deposit the amount within a period of three days from today, the protection granted to the Applicant shall come to an end without further reference to this Court; v) It is further made clear that the period of three days shall not be extended in any event and for whatsoever reason. Place this matter on Board on 11th June, 2015 for further orders. (A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 712 OF 2015 James D'Souza .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Sherbir Panag a/w Parvez Memon & Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : 7th JULY 2015 PC : By an order dated 19/05/2015, Vacation Court (Coram: A. S. Gadkari, J.) had granted conditional pre-arrest bail to the applicant. Condition was that he shall deposit amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in this Court within a period of 3 days from 19/05/2015. It is an admitted position that order has not been complied with till today. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would still be willing to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-, however, according to him, amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- is the amount alleged by the complainant and that criminal proceedings cannot be treated as recovery proceedings. Learned Vacation Court had observed that counsel for the applicant had expressed his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove his bonafides. Today, as the amount is disputed, judicial propriety warrants that application be heard and decided by the same bench. In view of this, Registry shall take directions and place the matter before appropriate Bench. However, learned counsel for the applicant would be at liberty to take steps. Removed from board. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.712 OF 2015. Mr. James D'Souza ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Ravi Mishra i/b MZM Legal for Applicant. Mrs. Prajakta Shinde, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM: A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 21st July 2015. P.C. 1 This matter is placed before me in pursuance of order dated 7th July 2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench as I had passed the interim order dated 19.5.2015. 2 Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 3 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, though the statement was made on behalf of the applicant on 19th May 2015 before this Court thereby expressing his willingness to deposit the disputed amount in this Court with a view to prove bonafide of the applicant, the applicant could not deposit the same within the said stipulated period and even as of today as the applicant is running short of the funds. He further submits that the applicant is trying to settle the matter out of the Court with the original complainant, but due to order dated 19.5.20015 the same could not take place. 4 It is to be noted here that in order dated 19.5.20015 in para-2, a statement of the Counsel for the applicant was recorded. The said statement is undoubtedly based on the instructions given by the applicant to his Counsel. On the basis of the said statement, the disputed amount was to be deposited within a period of three days from the date of order i.e. from 19.5.2015. As stated above, the said order has not been complied with. The applicant has failed to comply with the said order and has enjoyed prearrest bail till today. It is surprising to note here that the police authorities have also not taken notice of the condition imposed in para no.3(i), upon the applicant by the said order dated 19.5.2015. Para-3 (i) of the order dated 19.5.20015 reads as under: "The Applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by way of demand draft in the Registry of this Court within a period of three days from today. Subject to deposit of the said amount by the Applicant, in the event of arrest, the Applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal 2 bond of Rs.50,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount." 5 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that his client is ready and willing to deposit the admitted amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in this Court as the applicant is disputing amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as has been mentioned in the said order. In my considered opinion this statement is clearly an afterthought of the applicant after enjoying pre-arrest bail for a considerable period. 6 Thus, it is clear that order dated 19.5.2015 was self-operative and failure on the part of the applicant to deposit the said amount, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant has already come to an end. May that as it may, apart from the prima facie observations made in the order dated 19.5.2015 even on merits also the application has little merits. The minute perusal of the First Information Report and the documents of investigation, reveals that the applicant is perpetrator of the said crime and his custodial interrogation by the police is necessary for the purpose of further investigation. 7 In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present Application and is accordingly dismissed. (A.S. GADKARI,J.) ABA.712-2015