Sunny @ Santosh Kamlesh Haryani v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1302 OF 2023 Sunny @ Santosh Kamlesh Haryani ...Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

***** Adv. Monty Teckchandani i/by Adv. Amandeep Singh Bolle - Advocate for the Applicant Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent-State Mr. Suraj N. Naik i/by Mr. R. D. Suryawanshi - For Complainant ***** CORAM :

S. M. MODAK, J.

DATE :

04th MAY, 2023 P. C. :- 1.

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant. Heard the first informant as represented by the learned Advocate and also heard learned APP.

2.

The F.I.R. has arisen on the background of not returning the tables used for various functions by the Applicant to the first informant. Both of them are in the same business of the decoration. The first informant-Rajkumar carries business in the name of Kripa Traders (Decorators). Whereas present Applicant works in the shop Digitally signed by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2023.05.12 14:29:16 +0530 of Sai Kings Decorators. On account of Ganesh festival and Diwali SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR 1/3

festival from 28/05/2022 to 03/10/2022, the first informant has given on hire 649 tables to the Applicant. The rent was agreed Rs. 1,50,000/-. The first informant has maintained the entries in rough note book. It is signed by the Applicant. Police have collected it during investigation.

3.

Neither charges are paid nor the table are returned. Somehow the first informant was successful in taking back 19 tables. However 630 tables are with the Applicant. Finally, F.I.R. is registered under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code with the Ulhasnagar Police Station. Number of contentions are raised including denying taking the tables on hire, some of the inconsistencies in the avernements in the F.I.R., I am not impressed with the said arguments. It is for the reason that not only mentioned in the F.I.R. there are also entries in the Kaccha book to that effect. The contention is also raised how come the first informant can give tables on hire to his competitors Sai King Decorators where the Applicant is working. That contention cannot be accepted, because ultimately Court cannot opined what compelled the parties to enter into that transaction.

4.

The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge has dealt 2/3

with the issue about notice under Section 41 (A)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Some time was granted to the learned Advocate for the Applicant to take instructions. He has taken instructions from the wife of the Applicant. No solution was worked out. 5.

Considering the allegations, custodial interrogation is required as tables are to be seized. Hence no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence anticipatory bail application is rejected. [S. M. MODAK, J.] 3/3