The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Application No. 589/2011, rejected the applicant's plea for anticipatory bail in a cheating case involving the non-repayment of mobile phone worth Rs. 11 lakhs.
Rejection of anticipatory bail; refusal of request to surrender within a week.
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.
589aps
rng
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2011
Shri Pratik Mahendra Gokal Gandhi .. Applicant
vs
State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
(at instance of Andheri E) Police Stn)
with
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.397 OF 2011
in
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.589/2011
Pratik Mahendra Gokal Gandhi .. Applicant
State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Mr.Prakash Naik for Applicant
Ms.P.P.Shinde APP for State
P.C.
1. Criminal Application No.397 of 2011 and 589
of 2011 for intervention allowed.
589aps
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Applicant seek anticipatory bail in
Crime No.255 of 2011 registered with Andheri
(E) Police Station under Sections 406,420 IPC.
Perused the report lodged by Hira Chandmal Jain.
4.On hearing learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of the police papers it is revealed
that one Shree Sant Krupa Application Pvt.Ltd
is the main distributor for Samsung company and
SM Tele Direct Pvt.Ltd is the local distributor.
The Applicant Pratik Mahendra GorakhGandhi was
working as Sales Executive for 'Shree Sant Krupa
Application Pvt.Ltd' and in that capacity he
used to approach the local dealers for supply
and sales of Samsung Mobile handsets. The
Complainant Hira Jain runs the business in the
name and style as Arihant Infocom and deals in
Samsung Mobile handsets. According to him, for
the month of May, 2011, the company had fixed
target of sales by him at Rs.17 lacs. He told
the Applicant that due to recession in the
market it was not possible to achieve their
target and therefore he was unable to accept the
supplies. However, the Applicant told him that
the Complainant was getting 7% margin and if the
Complainant would give some stock to him with
margin of 6%, he would sell the said stock in
market through different dealers and pay the
money to him and thus the Complainant could
reach the target as well as get profit of 1% as
margin. Due to this assurance, the Complainant
placed the order and received the stock on
20.5.2011. On the same day, the Applicant took
away a large number of Mobile hand sets from the
shop of the Complainant. Similarly on 28.5.2011
also the Applicant took away a huge number of
Mobile hand sets from the shop of the
complainant. He gave details of the hands sets
which were taken away by the Applicant. The
total number of mobile hand sets was 343 and
value was Rs.11,00,631/-. The stock was taken
away by the Applicant by making a false
589aps
representation and assurance which he never
intended to fulfil. The Applicant allegedly
disposed of the said stock but, never made the
payment.
5.During investigation, it was revealed that
the Applicant had duped in the similar way
several other dealers including one Mustaq, who
runs shop in the name of "Mobile Solutions" and
one Paras Jayantilal Dharod, who runs business
in the name of "Modern Tele Sales and Service."
Huge stocks were taken away from them also for
giving similar assurances.
6.Accordingtothepolice,during
investigation some hand sets have been recovered
from different dealers and their statements
reveal that the Applicant had supplied the hand
sets to them and had received money.
7.Learned counsel for the Applicant on the
earlier date made a grievance against the police
589aps
as well as against the Complainant and because
of those allegations made against the police, ad
interim anticipatory bail was granted by the
order dated 11.7.2011. On perusal of that order
it appears that ad interim protection was given
merely because of allegations of harassment
against police and the Complainant while the
facts of the case against him were not brought
to the notice of the Court.
8.Taking into consideration the nature of the
offence and conduct of the Applicant, in my
opinion it is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail.
9.Therefore, Application stand rejected.
Request to surrender within a week is refused.
J.H.BHATIA, J
589aps
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a criminal conspiracy to cheat involving cheating by personation and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Whether the allegations of harassment against the police and complainant warrant a change in the ad interim protection granted on those grounds.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Pratik Mahendra Gorakh Gandhi
State of Maharashtra
J.H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court