Renu Brijendrapal Singh v. State Of Maharashtra

Amberkar IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4040 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2025 Renu Brijendrapal Singh .. Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Premlal Krishan a/w Mr. Siddharth Pimple & Mr. Prashant Bothre i/by PAN India Legal Services LLP for Applicant  Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for State ...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MARCH 28, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Krishan, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Bajoria, learned APP for State.

2.

One of the principle submissions made by Mr. Krishan is that the charge and offense for which the Applicant is indicted namely the property and movable asset (amount of Rs. Three Crore Sixty One Lakh) has already been secured. He would submit that the bank account in which said amount was lying has been frozen under orders of the Court and the subject property also stands attached and preserved. He would submit that previous orders passed by the Court prima facie do take cognizance of the above facts. Another submission made by Mr. Krishan is that the Applicant cannot be punished twice

for the same offence and he would therefore invoke the principle of double jeopardy in the present case. He would submit that the contents of the twin FIRs filed in the present case; one in January 2021 and second in December 2023 are the same rather they are with respect to the same cause of action and qua the same property (subject flat) and the money received by the Applicant in her bank account which stands frozen and therefore secured. He would submit that first informant is the husband of the Applicant. All that he would submit is that once the amount and the property stands secured, investigation is completed and chargesheet has been filed, custody of the Applicant any further is not warranted. He would submit that Applicant has co-operated with the investigating machinery.

He would submit that present dispute emanates from the matrimonial relationship between Applicant wife and the first informant husband qua the properties between them apart from the rights of other family members also. He would submit that the present case essentially emanates from a civil dispute to which a criminal flavor has been given by the first informant and therefore prays for bail of the Applicant in the above circumstances.

3.

Learned APP appearing in the matter shall consider the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Krishan and apprise the role of the Applicant from the record of the case to the Court on the next

adjourned date so as to consider the present Application for Bail. Considering that Applicant is a woman and having been incarcerated for the past 14 months, this Application shall be heard and decided by the Court on the next adjourned date which may be noted by the prosecution.

4.

Stand over to 22nd April, 2025. To be placed on Supplementary Board.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date:

2025.03.29 12:14:17 +0530 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR