Jayant Sanjeeva Shetty v. The State Of Maharashtra

Prasad Rajput IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4989 OF 2024 Jayant Sanjeeva Shetty .. Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4989 OF 2024 Prada Sadhu Shetty .. Applicant

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra and Anr.

.. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate a/w mr. Jugal Kanani, Advocate for Applicant.

 Mr. Sachin Mhatre a/w Ms. Diksha Shirodkar i/by Mhatre Law Associates, for Intervenors.

 Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia, APP for State.

............

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : APRIL 07, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Mhatre, learned Advocate for Intervenors and Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for State.

2.

At the outset, Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for State and Mr. Mhatre, learned Advocate for Intervenors would persuade the Court to consider the fact that recording of the submissions made in the order dated 03.04.2025 are prima facie misleading according to them

because as per instructions received by learned APP from the Investigating Officer, he would submit that almost all properties which have been attached by prosecution belonging to Applicant are encumbered in as much as the Applicant has already created third party rights, some of the properties have an embargo due to orders passed by the Tribunal / Courts as also in case of some properties transactions have already been entered into creating third party rights by the Applicant.

3.

Mr. Mhatre, learned Advocate for Intervenors would submit that there is also an element of forgery and fabrication by some backdated documents placed on record which he would like to point out.

4.

Be that as it may, in view of the request made by Mr. Dedhia as also exigency expressed by him that he cannot appear in the matter due to personal reasons, he shall ensure that a responsible APP / counsel appears in the matter alongwith all instructions given to him from the concerned Investigating Officer. 4.1.

He would also request the Court to grant some time to file Affidavit-in-Reply in order to place on record the ambiguities with respect to the concerned properties which have been attached. Time is granted. Let the Affidavit-in-Reply be filed on or before 17th April,

2025 with an advance copy served on the learned Advocate for Applicant.

5.

Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed before the next adjourned date.

6.

Stand over to 22nd April, 2025. To be listed on the 'Supplementary Board'.

P.R. Rajput [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]