Vishal Shivbhai Parmar v. State Of Maharashtra

Ajay 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. 5256 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5256 OF 2024 Vishal Shivbhai Parmar .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5265 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5265 OF 2024 Karan Dilip Dhabaliya .. Applicant

Versus

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

 Mr. Nihar Ghag a/w. Mr. Darshan Zagade, Advocates for Applicant in BA No.5256 of 2024.

 Mr. Durgesh Rege, Advocate i/by Mr. Subodh athak for Applicant in BA No.5265 of 2024.

 Ms. Shilpa K. Gajare - Dhumal, APP for Respondent - State. ....................

CORAM

: MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MARCH 11, 2025.

P.C.:

1.

Mentioned at the time of rising of the Court. 2.

Heard Mr. Ghag, learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application No.5256 of 2024; Mr. Rege, learned Advocate for

Applicant in Bail Application No.5265 of 2024 and Ms. Gajare - Dhumal, learned APP for Respondent - State.

3.

Applicants before me are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4.

Accused No.1 is charged with preparing a forged letter head of the Society whereas Accused No.2 is charged being a witness to the Power of Attorney executed by the wife of the Complainant - First Informant.

5.

On the basis of the aforesaid documents, it is seen that a overdraft facility from the bank was created leading to receipt / borrowing some monies from the Bank. Both the learned Advocates inform the Court that the Applicants are not beneficiaries of any amount whatsoever which have been transacted upon with respect to the subject flat in question belonging to the First Informant. 6.

In so far as the Accused No.1 is concerned, learned Advocate has informed the Court that there was a transaction of Rs.5 lakhs between the First Informant and Accused No.1 out of which Rs.4.5 lakhs has already been returned back by Accused No.1 to the First Informant - Complainant.

7.

In so far as Accused No.2 is concerned, apart from mere statement and allegation of he receiving any money without any substantiation, there is nothing placed on record to prima facie come to that conclusion. Accused No.2 is a tailor by profession. 8.

Considering the aforesaid facts, prima facie case is made out for grant of bail to the Applicants if the submissions of the Advocate for the Applicants are to be upheld.

9.

Ms. Gajare - Dhumal, learned APP is directed to take appropriate instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer on the precise role of the Applicants in the crime and accordingly apprise the Court on the next adjourned date on the veracity of the aforementioned submissions.

10.

Stand over to 27th March, 2025. To be listed on the 'Supplementary Board'.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date:

2025.03.12 10:50:46 +0530 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE