VISHAL SHIVAJI DHORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same CR, they are being decided by a common order.

(2.) By these appeals, the appellants therein seek their enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 1380 of 2020 registered with the Hadapsar Police Station, Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 347, 385, 386, 387, 504, 506 , 120B, 467 of the Indian Penal Code; Ss. 3(1)(g)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SCST. Act'), Ss. 39, 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014; Sec. 3 r/w 25 of the Arms Act ; and, under Ss. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ('MCOC Act').

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant - Vishal Dhore submits that the allegations as against the appellant are false and baseless and that no offences as alleged are disclosed against the appellant in the said case. He submits that the dispute, if any, is of a civil nature with respect to the purchase of a bungalow by the appellant - Vishal from the first informant. He submits that the documents on record will show that the appellant - Vishal had repaid the entire loan taken by the first informant, from Shriram Housing Finance. In support of the said submission, learned counsel relied on the statement of the Regional Manager of Shriram Housing Finance - Sachin Lakule and the Legal Manager of Shriram Housing Finance - Mr. Ritesh Gupta. He further relied on the statement of the notary, who notarised the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') executed between the first informant and the appellant with respect to the purchase of the said house. He submits that admittedly, the power of attorney, sale deed are all registered documents executed before the Sub-Registrar. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, although the first informant has alleged in the FIR that he signed all the documents before the Sub-Registrar at gun point, the said allegations are clearly missing in the Civil Suit, which was filed by the first informant, prior in point of time i.e. prior to registration of FIR. He submits that if the said fact i.e. that the first informant was made to sign the documents at gun point is true, the same would have certainly reflected in the Civil Suit, which was filed, prior in time. He submits that the MCOCA could not have been invoked having regard to the nature of dispute between the parties. He further submits that the appellant has been enlarged on bail in a case in which he is accused alongwith one Ravindra Barhate, and, that the allegation in that case as against the appellant, was only under Sec. 201 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had paid the entire consideration towards the house purchased from the first informant including the first informant's home loan to Shriram Housing Finance and it is only when the appellant sought possession/handing over of the said house, that the first informant filed a Civil Suit and thereafter, the present FIR, alleging the aforesaid offences. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since January 2021 and as such he be enlarged on bail.