Ashok Narsappa Gopreddy v. State Of Maharashtra

1 / 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2024 Ashok Narsappa Gopreddy .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

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

• Mr. Rajendra Rathod a/w Sohail Ahmed a/w Mujtaba Shaikh a/w Umar Dalvi, Advocate for Applicant.

• Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent. • Mr. Afsar Ansari a/w Gaurav Omble i/b. Prasad S. Panchal, Advocate for Respondent No.2/Orig. Complainant.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 28th JUNE, 2024 P.C. :

1.

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.275/2023, dated 14/07/2023, registered with Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai, under sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Rathod, learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel Mr. Afsar Ansari for the Respondent Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date:

2024.07.02 16:21:32 +0530 MANUSHREE NESARIKAR No.2 and Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned APP for the State. Nesarikar

2 / 4 3.

The FIR is lodged by one Suresh Rachmalla. The brief facts in the FIR are that the Applicant had entered the complainant's premises in room No.1601, Mahalaxmi S.R.A. Coop Housing Society Ltd., Parel, Mumbai. He continued to occupy that room fraudulently with the help of other accused. According to the accused/present Applicant, he had paid money to other accused and he was occupying that room under the leave and license.

4.

On 25/01/2024, at the instance of both the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the original complainant, the matter was referred for mediation and the Applicant was protected by way of ad-interim relief.

5.

Now the mediation report is received and it is mentioned therein that the mediation has failed. However, today, the learned counsel for the Applicant as well as the learned counsel for the first informant jointly make a statement that subsequent to failure of mediation, the parties have settled

3 / 4 their dispute inter se. They have executed consent terms as well. They have submitted consent terms dated 06/05/2024. They are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The first informant is present in the Court. He is identified by the counsel appearing for him today. In the consent terms it is clearly mentioned that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties. In paragraph No.6 it is specifically mentioned that the complainant shall not take any objection for confirming the interim relief granted on 25/01/2024 and shall have no objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the Applicant. 6.

The informant is present in the Court. He states that he has no objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the Applicant. 7.

Learned APP on instructions of the Investigating Officer also does not have any objection for grant of anticipatory bail. 8.

Considering that the first informant himself does not have any grievance against the Applicant any more and since the matter is amicably settled between the parties, there is no

4 / 4 reason as to why anticipatory bail should not be granted to the Applicant.

9.

Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.275/2023, dated 14/07/2023, registered with Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The application stands disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)