CNR No. MHNS010028702022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.708/2022.
( Namkaran Yashwant Aaware Vs. State )
The present application is moved by the applicant­
accused Namkaran Yashwant Aaware under section 438 of Cr.P.C.
in connection with CR No. 164/2022 registered with MIDC Sinnar
Police Station, Dist. Nashik for the offence U/s. 465,468,471,420 of
the Indian Penal Code on 5.6.2022.
2.

It is stated in the application that, applicant­accused is
ex­director of the society and elections of the society coming soon
and the said election is going to contest by the applicant­accused
and Diliprao Ramrao Shinde forming their panels. The applicant
applied to Deputy Registrar Co­operative Societies, Nashik for
removal of name of Diliprao Ramrao Shinde and his brother
Annasaheb Ramrao Shinde as they are in arrears of loan amount of
Gulmohar Hotel, on the basis of letter accepted by him that there
are dues of the society against them. It is further stated that Sinnar
Taluka Co­operative Industrial Estates Ltd. Sinnar issued a notice to
Hotel Gulmohar residency containing schedule describing the due
amount from said Hotel on 31.1.2022 and schedule is part of notice
and there is no question of forging the schedule by applicant­
accused. A demand notice was also sent to said Hotel and its
partners Diliprao Ramrao Shinde and Annasaheb Ramrao Shinde of
Rs.8,00,000/­ on 14.9.2012, which was duly acknowledged with
signature by Diliprao Ramrao Shinde and he replied the said notice
on 10.10.2012 and sought time for two month for making the
payments. The amount was not paid by him. It is further stated that
meanwhile Diliprao Ramrao Shinde became Chairman of the society
and taking disadvantage of his post, he made a resolution thereby
..2..

remitting an amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ and committed illegality by
him and therefore, again demand was made by the society on
30.12.2020 and interest 18 % from 2013. It is further stated that
the application was made by the applicant­accused before Deputy
Registrar of Co­operative Societies, Nashik requesting removal of
name of Diliprao Shinde and Annasaheb Shinde from the voters list
of the society was rejected and against the order he moved Hon’ble
High Court and notified to Diliprao Ramrao Shinde
through a
written letter and on receipt of the said letter Diliprao got annoyed
and preferred a false application to the first informant. It is also
stated that Diliprao Shinde has not preferred with police and he
made the Deputy Administrative Officer to lodge the FIR and
accordingly Police Inspector, Sinnar Police Station has issued a
notice under section 41A of Cr.P.C. on 6.6.2022 and therefore,
applicant­accused has apprehension of arrest in connection of the
said crime.
3.

It is stated in the application that, applicant­accused has
not committed any offence and on rivalry with Diliprao Shinde false
FIR lodged against him with the help of first informant. Applicant­
accused has deep roots in the society and having high status. He
was expert director in the society from 2015 to 2017 and was 2017
to 2020 and going to contest upcoming election of the society
forming a panel headed by him and to remove him, a false FIR is
lodged. There are no antecedents of the applicant­accused neither
any offence was registered against him nor convicted nor undergone
imprisonment. He is running an Industrial Unit in the same
industrial area by name N. Y Enterprises, Plot No. C­104, Sinnar
Taluka Co­operative Industrial Estate and manufactured decorative
Cri. Bail Application No.708/2022.
..3..

paint. He is reputed businessman. He is ready to abide all conditions
laid down by this Court, these and other ground set out in the
application, prayed to allow the anticipatory bail application.
4.

Application is opposed by the State vide Exh.9. I.O. is
absent, but his representative is present before the court.
5.

Heard both the parties. The learned counsel for
applicant­accused has filed his written notes of argument at Exh.11
and placed reliance upon following case laws:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
6.

Rajesh s/o Mohanlal Kothari Vs State of Maharashtra,
2010(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 208
Shaikh Chand Shaikh Ahmed Vs The State of
Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition No.1583/2017
decided on 4.12.2017
Sushila Aggrawal and ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi ) and
Anr., AIR 2020 Supreme Court 831
Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs State of U.P. and
Another in Criminal Appeal No.283 of 2021, decided on
8.3.2021.
Perused entire record. On perusal of the entire record, it
appears that, the partners of M/s. Hotel Gulmohar residency, Shri.
Annasaheb Ramrao Shinde and Dilip Ramrao Shinde were allotted
with plot No.A­14 to the Sinnar Taluka Industrial Co­operative
Society on 4.9.2009 on lease basis.

At that time, the said
partnership firm had paid Rs.4,00,000/­ plus an amount of
Rs.1,300/­ towards payment of the said plot and shares.
Subsequently on 21.5.2010 and 14.6.2011 the Government
Agencies have permitted to use the said plot for commercial purpose
by their respective orders. Therefore, the society on 17.6.2011
issued a letter to the said partnership firm called upon to pay
Rs.11,00,000/­ after deducting Rs.4,00,000/­ from the premium
..4..

amount of Rs.15,00,000/­ assessed for use of the said plot for
commercial purpose.
7.

Subsequently dispute arose regarding payment of said
premium and there is various correspondence and litigation
between the said partnership firm and the society. Shri. Dilip
Ramrao Shinde was once Director/Chairman and during his period
the said premium amount was reduced from Rs.11,00,000/­ to
Rs.3,00,000/­
particularly
a
resolution
dated
15.7.2011.

Accordingly, letter was issued dated 23.8.2011 by the society
demanding Rs.3,00,000/­ from the said partnership firm. However,
subsequently the Auditor raised objection stating that said
resolution is against the financial interest of the society. Therefore,
necessary letter dated 14.9.2012 demanding Rs.8,00,000/­ was
issued by the society to the said partnership firm. The said
partnership firm accordingly sought two months time by its letter
dated 10.10.2012, however, used the said concessional period to file
dispute in a Co­operative Court, Nashik bearing No. 157/2013. The
society appeared in the dispute filed its written statement on record.
However, again the said suit came to be withdrawn by the
partnership firm unconditionally. Dilip Ramrao Shinde was
Chairman of the society for the period from 2013 to 2015.
8.

On the background of this dispute between the
partnership firm and the society, the Manager of the society issued a
“No Dues certificate” dated 1.2.2022 in favour of M/s. Hotel
Gulmohar Residency. The applicant­accused on 16.2.2022 filed a
complaint application with District Returning Officer/Deputy
Registrar co­operative, Nashik taking objection to the names of
Annasaheb Shinde and Dilip Shinde in the voter list as they are in
Cri. Bail Application No.708/2022.
..5..

arrears of the payment of the premium as discussed above. He filed
various documents on record alongwith a schedule showing that
these both partners are in arrears of Rs.15,24,000/­ including
principal and interest amount as on 31.1.2022. The said proceeding
appears to be heard by the concerned Co­operative Authority and
held that, in view of No Dues Certificate issued by the society dated
1.2.2022 these partners are not in arrears and thus, rejected the
objection raised by the applicant­accused. Therefore, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings, the applicant­accused
approached to the Hon’ble High Court by filing writ petition
No.663/2022. However, the same is also disposed of by the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court by holding that, from the record that, certificate
given by the Manager was produced to show the respondent No.6
was not in default in view of the said certificate the returning officer
has arrived at a conclusion. We are not going to embark upon the
disputed question of fact. The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of. No costs. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
9.

Thus, on the background of this history of litigation the
FIR came to be lodged against the applicant­accused by the present
Vice President of the said Society Shri. Narayan Waman Patil
alleging that, the schedule mentioned above is a forged and was
never issued by the society and the same was used as a genuine by
the applicant­accused and therefore, Sinnar Police Station has
registered the offence against the applicant­accused.
10.

Thus, from the above discussion, it appears that the
alleged dispute between the parties has roots in the various self
contradictory resolutions passed by the society due to the change in
..6..

the panel of Directors and the society has taken self contradictory
stand from time to time in the said dispute. However, the fact
remains that at present the Returning Officer rejected the objection
raised by the applicant­accused and the same is confirmed by the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court as discussed above. It is also matter of
record that, at present the society has disowned the said schedule
upon which the applicant­accused has placed his reliance against
the said partnership firm. Therefore, now it is the applicant­accused
who has to explain as to how the said schedule came to in his
possession and has to explain the source of said document during
the course of investigation as at present as per FIR the said schedule
branded as a forged document.
11.

However,
considering
the
long
standing
dispute
regarding the said Industrial Plot and particularly the fact that the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court while disposing he said writ petition
has observed in para No.4 of the said order that, all the contentions
are kept open. Therefore, considering this factual aspect and
particularly the fact that all the documents pertaining to the present
matter are in public domain particularly with the society, with the
Returning Officer and the co­operative Court and nothing was to be
seized from the custody of the present applicant­accused so far as
source of the document in question is concerned necessary
conditions to remain present in the police station can be stipulated
so as to serve the very purpose of the investigation and particularly
fact that, the offence is punishable only upto Seven Years and the
custodial interrogation of the applicant­accused is not required.
12.

Therefore, the learned counsel for applicant­accused has
rightly relied upon the case laws as listed above. They are on the
Cri. Bail Application No.708/2022.
..7..

point of Article­21 of the Constitution of India and personal liberty
which is highest paramount consideration in the judicial system.
13.

Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present
anticipatory bail application with certain conditions. Hence,
following order.
ORDER
1)
Anticipatory
allowed.

bail
application
No.708/2022
2)
Applicant­accused Namkaran Yashwant Aaware be enlarged
on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.30,000/­ with one
or two sureties in like amount, in the event of his arrest in
C.R. No.164/2022 registered with MIDC Sinnar Police
Station for the offence U/s. 465, 468, 471, 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.

3)
He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as dissuade them for disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer.

4)
He shall attend concerned police station as and when called
for by the Investigating Officer, after receipt of the notice in
writing specifying the date and time of attendance to the
police station till submission of final report. required by the
police machinery.

5)
He shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper
with the evidence.

6)
He shall co­operate with the investigation agency.

7)
Inform Sinnar Police station, Dist. Nashik.

SHINDE
MADHAV A
Date­ 14.06.2022
is
hereby
Digitally signed by
SHINDE MADHAV A
Date: 2022.06.14
18:08:12 +0530
( M.A. Shinde )
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.