The High Court of Bombay rejected an application for anticipatory bail. The court found the applicant involved in a bank loan fraud scheme with a builder, noting suspicious fund transfers and an agreement for flat purchase without possession.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected as not a fit case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3205 OF 2009
Rafique Yasin Qureshi ........ Applicant versus
The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent.
Mr. I.S. Thakur with Shraddha Y. Mohite adv. for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP. for the Respondent/State.
CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 11th August, 2009.
P. C.:
builder by name Gopal Bhagatsing Sonar proprietor of M/s. Rashma Enterprises however the amount was deposited in a fictitious account no. 00152000008612 in HDFC bank Mulund branch in the name of proprietor Mahesh Sampatraj Punamiya. An affidavit has been filed in reply to the application and in para 5 thereof it is stated that the investigation reveals that the applicant borrower Rafiq Yasin Qureshi has received a sum of Rs.1,12,500/by bearer cheque No. 0717641 dated 25-1-2005 from the said fictitious account opened in HDFC bank. The amount was withdrawn by the son of the applicant. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the modus operandi adopted by the applicant in connivance with other accused, the learned APP submits that custodial interrogation is very much necessary. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, a registered agreement was executed in between the applicant and the builder and a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was paid by way of earnest money/part payment. Even this payment of Rs. 55,000/- is shown to have been made in cash. Record further reveals that at no point of time the applicant made any grievance in regard to failure on the part of the builder to hand over possession of flat. In so far as the receipt of the amount from fictitious account is concerned, the explanation of the applicant is that the said amount denote the refund of the excess payment made by the applicant to the builder. This appears to be improbable. There are various aspects which needs to be properly investigated. What is relevant to note is that against the same flat loan has been disbursed by more than one bank. In the instant case so far as the applicant is concerned, the flat in question is financed by the Central Bank of India besides
Uco Bank, A.R. Street branch, Mumbai and also Brandra branch of the said bank. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence application is rejected.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal applicant for anticipatory bail in a fraud case involving loan sanction and possession of flat is a fit case for bail.
Rafique Yasin Qureshi
The State of Maharashtra
A. P DESHPANDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
