Shishir Mangesh Shivapurkar vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the genesis of the alleged offences appears to be in commercial transactions. It was noted that possession of Flat No. 1503 had been delivered, and the applicant undertook to deliver possession of Flat No. 2103. The allegations of making a forged document and forgery were considered a matter for adjudication at trial. The applicant had been in custody since November 25, 2022, investigation was complete, and further detention was not warranted. The applicant was deemed to have roots in society, making the possibility of fleeing remote. The undertaking to deliver possession of Flat No. 2103 was accepted as an undertaking to the court. The Court also noted a statement that the applicant would meet the first informant to resolve the issue of appropriating the Rs. 1,09,00,000/- towards GST and other amounts. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, with the applicant to be released on bail, subject to furnishing a PR bond and sureties. The undertakings in the affidavit cum undertaking were accepted. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail determination and not an expression of opinion on guilt.

Facts

The applicant, Shishir Mangesh Shivapurkar, is seeking bail in a criminal case registered for offences including cheating and criminal breach of trust. The prosecution alleges that the applicant induced the first informant to pay Rs. 5 Crores for Flat No. 1503 and Rs. 5 Crores for Flat No. 2103 at Neha Residency. While possession of Flat No. 1503 was delivered, possession of Flat No. 2103 was allegedly handed over to another accused despite full payment. Additionally, the applicant is accused of retaining Rs. 1,09,00,000/- for a cancelled transaction of Flat No. 2102 and fabricating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The applicant claims no intention to deceive, offers to deliver possession of Flat No. 2103, and disputes the forgery allegations regarding the MOU.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 448, 465, 467, 471, 474, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had no intention to deceive the first informant. Possession of Flat No. 1503 was delivered, and the applicant is willing to deliver possession of Flat No. 2103 as per the contract. The allegations of forgery are unfounded, as the MOU was executed in 2017, not 2020 as alleged. An affidavit cum undertaking was filed to demonstrate bonafide, offering to hand over possession of Flat No. 2103 subject to the first informant depositing outstanding statutory GST, interest, penalties, and other dues. Respondent's arguments: The State, through the learned APP, resisted the bail application. The first informant's counsel submitted that while willing to accept possession of Flat No. 2103, the applicant is unjustly retaining Rs. 1,09,00,000/-. The amount of GST and other charges payable by the first informant should be adjusted against this outstanding amount owed by the applicant.