AMOL @ AVIKUMAR DHONDIRAM DHULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No. 176 of 2018 registered at Cuffe Parade Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 465, 466,468,471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has filed the present petition with following prayer:

(2.) The aforesaid crime came to be registered on the the basis of report lodged by one Shri. Gautam P. Bhudrani. The said Gautam Bhudrani has alleged that he had purchased land bearing Survey No. 436/1/A and 427/1 at village Wahal, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad. He wanted certain clearances/permissions from the government departments in relation to the said lands. The petitioner/accused who was introduced to him by his Architect friend represented to him that he has many contacts with the concerned persons in the Office of Collector at Raigad so also with the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alibag and assured him that he will be in a position to get the necessary and relevant permissions pertaining the above said land. Relying on the representation made by the petitioner/accused, he paid him an advance of Rs.3,53,10,000/-. The petitioner/accused gave certain orders passed by the Additional Collector, Raigad to him. After verifying the documents, he found that documents given by the petitioner/accused were forged. When he made enquiry in the vicinity, he found that the petitioner/accused has cheated many persons by adopting same modus operandi.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner/accused is that on 39 occasions, the learned Magistrate extended his judicial custody in a casual manner even though on the said 39 occasions he was not produced before the learned Magistrate either physically or through video conferencing. It is submitted that the detention of the petitioner/accused is thus illegal and the respondents be directed to release the petitioner/accused forthwith. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petition for habeas corpus is maintainable. In support of submissions, reliance is is placed on the judgment reported in 2012 BomCR (Cri.) 402 in the case of Sonu Madanlal Yogi vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.