Bombay High CourtAPPP/232/2016rejected

Gajananrao Vasantral Kulkarni v. State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S. Gadgenara, Amravati

2016-03-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq3 pages

1 appp232.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO.232/2016 Gajananrao Vasantrao Kulkarni ..Versus..

State of Maharashtra, through P.S. Gadgenagar, Amravati - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 1.3.2016 Heard Shri P.V. Navlani, advocate for the applicant and Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.P.P. for the non-applicant. The applicant had filed Criminal Application (ABA) No.571/2015 before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in crime registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation against the applicant is that he posed himself to be owner of plot no.26B, Survey No.189/3, admeasuring 2229 Sq. Ft. and offered it as security to obtain loan of Rs.15,000,00/- from the bank. The facts on the record show that the amount of Rs.15,000,00/- is disbursed to the

2 appp232.16 applicant. The allegation is that on verification, it was noticed that the documents supplied by the applicant to the bank are not genuine and are forged.

This Court granted ad-interim protection on 30th October, 2015, and subsequently on 26th November, 2015 accepting the statement made on behalf of the applicant that he had already paid an amount of Rs.5,000,00/- and he will pay the balance amount of Rs.14,000,00/- within three moths, the ad-interim order came to be confirmed. This Court recorded that if the amount is not paid, the bank would be at liberty to move this Court.

The present application is filed by the applicant seeking extension of time for complying with the order dated 26th November, 2015. The matter was listed on 26th February, 2016. The learned advocate for the applicant had submitted that the applicant requires some more time to pay the amount as assured at the time of hearing on 26th November, 2015. The applicant was asked to deposit some amount to show the bonafides and the matter came to be adjourned for today i.e. 1st March, 2016. Shri Navlani, advocate for the applicant has

3 appp232.16 submitted that the applicant is not in a position to deposit the amount and will require further time to make arrangements. In my view, there are no bonafides on the part of the applicant inasmuch as he has not deposited part of the amount also. Considering the conduct of the applicant, in my view, the order passed by this Court on 26th November, 2015 has to be recalled for committing breach of condition and not complying with the directions of this Court. The order dated 26th November, 2015 is recalled and the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant is cancelled. The application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.