Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2446-2447 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3527-3528/2014)

RAKESH BABAN BORHADE        ..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.            ..Respondents

O R D E R

R. BANUMATHI, J  .   

Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  by  special  leave  challenge  the  

Order dated 1.4.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court,  in  

and by which, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail  

applications  filed  by  the  appellant  while  granting  

anticipatory bail to two other persons (Suresh Vallabhji Vora  

and  Rajnikant  N. Parekh) arrayed as accused in the  same  

case.

Page 2

3.  Case of  the prosecution arises out  of  a  private  

complaint filed by M/s. Merit Magnum Construction alleging  

commission  of  offences  against  the  appellant  and  other  

accused u/s 420, 406, 423, 424 r/w Section 34 IPC wherein  

directions were issued by the Magistrate u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.  

for proper investigation.  Case of the complainant is that on  

21.12.2005,  the  seven  companies  through  their  Directors  

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to sell  

the  rights  of  their  land  to  the  complainant  -  M/s.  Merit  

Magnum Construction, formerly M/s Vimal Builders. Till 2006,  

the  complainant  is  said  to  have  paid  a  sum  of  

Rs.7,22,12,256/-  to  the  said  companies.  It  is  alleged  that  

inspite  of  the  timely  payment  of  Rs.7,22,12,256/-,  the  

accused persons did not transfer the lands as promised in  

the MOU.  It is the case of the complainant that during the  

period  from  2005  to  April  2013,  the  Directors  and  

shareholders  of  the  above  mentioned  seven  companies–  

Suresh  V.  Vora,  Rajnikant  N.  Parekh  and  the  appellant–  

Rakesh Baban Borhade with common intention to deceive  

the  complainant  company  avoided  transferring  ownership  

rights,  interest,  shares  and  related  documents  to  the  

2

Page 3

complainant  company  and  also  deliberately  suppressed  

several transactions relating to the property prior to MOU.

4. The Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail  

application  filed  by  the  appellant  and  other  accused.  

Aggrieved  by  the  same,  the  accused  persons  moved  the  

High Court, which vide its impugned order dated 1.4.2014  

while granting bail to the other accused persons, dismissed  

the application of the appellant. The appellant is before us,  

assailing the correctness of the impugned order.

5. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava,  learned Senior Counsel  

for  the  appellant  contended  that  the  appellant  became  

Director  of  Alpha  Omega  Home  Fund  Pvt.  Ltd.  only  in  

November 2010 and that he was not a party to the MOU  

dated  21.12.2005  as  at  that  time   he  was  neither  a  

shareholder  nor  a  director  of  the  said  seven  companies.  

Learned  senior  counsel  has  drawn  our  attention  to  the  

challans  and  cheques  at  pages  283-288  of  the  SLP  

paperbook and submitted that those cheques were meant  

for the companies mentioned therein and the appellant was  

not a beneficiary of those cheques.  It was urged that in any  

event, entire case is based on documentary evidence which  

3

Page 4

is in the form of MOU dated 21.12.2005 and the registered  

sale agreements and bank cheques and challans and hence,  

the custody of the appellant is not at all  required and the  

High Court was not justified in refusing anticipatory bail to  

the appellant.  

6. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel for  

the second respondent submitted that to unearth the trail of  

the transactions and the money received by the appellant, a  

thorough  interrogation  is  necessary  and  the  High  Court  

rightly declined anticipatory bail to the appellant.

7. We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  the  

learned counsel for the appearing parties and perused the  

impugned order and the materials on record.                         

8. Sub-section (1) of Section 438 has been amended  

by Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act 2005 (Act 25 of 2005), by which  

old sub-section (1) has been substituted by new sub-sections  

(1),  (1A)  and  (1B).   The  guiding  factors  for  grant  of  

anticipatory bail have been mentioned in sub-section (1) of  

Section  438  itself.   The  Court  would  grant  or  refuse  

anticipatory bail after taking into consideration the following  

factors, namely:-

4

Page 5

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the  fact as to whether he has previously undergone  imprisonment  on  conviction  by  a  Court  in  respect of  any cognizable offence;

(iii) the  possibility   of  the  applicant  to  flee  from  justice; and  

(iv) where the  accusation has been made with the  object of injuring  or humiliating  the applicant  by having him so arrested.

Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, but  

should be granted only when a special case is made out and  

the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his  

liberty.  After analysing various judgments and guidelines in  

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and  

Ors.,  (2011)  1  SCC  694,  this  Court  has  enumerated  the  

parameters  that  can  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the  

courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail.

9. In  the  light  of  the  parameters  laid  down  in  

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre’s case, we have considered  

rival  contentions of the parties.   The dispute between the  

parties  revolves  around  MOU  dated  21.12.2005  and  the  

previous  MOU  dated  3.2.2005.  The  dispute  is  purely  a  

business transaction based on the said MOUs.  According to  

5

Page 6

the  appellant-accused,  he  sold  the  land  belonging  to  his  

father in Survey No.75/18 to M/s. Siddhivinayak Enterprises  

by sale deed dated 31.12.2007 as legal representative of his  

father and there is no illegality involved in it.  Whether the  

appellant-accused  has  sold  the  property  to  M/s.  

Siddhivinayak Enterprises in his capacity as the legal heir of  

his  father  or  as  a  representative  of  the  company  and  

whether  there  was  any  dishonest  intention  to  cheat  the  

complainant  remains  to  be  seen  only  when  the  parties  

adduce oral and documentary evidence.   

10.  When  the  Special  Leave  Petitions  came up  for  

hearing,  by  order  dated  9.5.2014  interim  protection  from  

arrest  was  granted  to  the  appellant-accused  and  without  

prejudice to the contentions, the appellant was directed to  

deposit  a  sum of  rupees one crore in  the Registry of  the  

Supreme  Court  and  in  compliance  of  the  said  order,  the  

appellant  has  deposited  rupees  one  crore.  Since  the  

transaction is in the nature of commercial  transaction and  

since  the  appellant  has  also  shown  his  bonafide  by  

depositing rupees one crore, pending further investigation,  

6

Page 7

in  our  view,  anticipatory  bail  could  be  granted  to  the  

appellant.     

11. In the result,  these appeals are allowed and the  

appellant  is  granted  anticipatory  bail  on  his  furnishing  a  

personal  bond of Rs.25,000/-  with two sureties of the like  

amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.  The appellant  

shall  co-operate  with  the  investigating  agency.  Without  

prejudice to the contention of the parties, the complainant-

second  respondent  (M/s.Merit  Magnum  Construction)  is  

permitted to  withdraw rupees one crore deposited by the  

appellant in this Court.  Withdrawal of the said amount of  

rupees one  crore by the second respondent shall be subject  

to the result of pending litigation between the parties or any  

other litigation contemplated by the parties pertaining to the  

MOU  dated  21.12.2005.   The  appeals  stand  disposed  of  

accordingly.

………………………..J. (V. Gopala Gowda)

………………………..J. (R. Banumathi)

New Delhi; November 19, 2014    

7