In a criminal appeal for bail in a cheating case, the single judge dismissed the application as lack of merit, observing prima facie evidence of dishonest inducement by the applicant against an investee.
Application for bail dismissed. Observations are prima facie in nature.
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.
CR.APL NO.77/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.77 of 2011
Omprakash Yadavrao Shekhapure,
Aged 46 years, Occ: Govt.service,
r/o Tilaknagar, Sillod,
Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Sillod Police Station, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.
2.The District Superintendent
of Police, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Adv., h/f Mr. Sunil B.Jadhav,
Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State.
...
CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:18/1/2011
***
PER COURT :
1.Heard.InCrimeNo.I-106/2010,
registered at Sillod Police Station, for an
offense under Sections 420, 406 of IPC, pre-
CR.APL NO.77/2011
2
arrest bail is sought.
2.The complainant Ashok, an Advocate by
profession, was approached by accused/applicant
on 29.5.2010, informing him of a Scheme to get
the investment multiplied at a higher speed and
acceleration. Believing in the statement and
representation of the accused/applicant, said
complainant handed over Rs.1,00,000/- to him, to
be invested in the Scheme propagated by the
accused/applicant.Thisissupportedby
witnesses.
3. Learned Counsel for the
accused/applicant submits, indeed, it is the
accused/applicant who is victim of circumstances.
In order to stress his point, he has placed
reliance to a report lodged to Police dt.23rd
Oct.,2010, and a subsequent report dt.21.11.2010.
In both the applications the applicant conveyed,
he has been duped in the process of investment by
the inducement from bigwigs of Aurangabad for
investing in Raynolds Fund Management Company
(hereinafter referred as Raynolds). There is a
certificate in favour of accused/applicant issued
by the said Company on 6th Dec.,2009.
4.Counsel submits, based on the investment
made by the complainant, indeed, there is such
certificate issued by the said Raynolds in
3 CR.APL NO.77/2011
favour of the said complainant Ashok dt.15th
Oct.,2010, informing, depositing of 2000 ePoints
corresponding to the investment of Rs.1,00,000/-
and it was placed on the status of a premier
investor Pralhad Vishal Kantaprasad.
5.On evaluating documents, prima facie, it
was the dishonest intention running in the mind
of the accused/applicant by which he induced the
complainant to deliver Rs.1,00,000/- to be
invested in a scheme floated by his mentor. He
did not advert to any risk in the affairs.
Parting of the said money by the complainant was
solely at the representation and inducement made
by the accused/applicant.
6.Custodial interrogation would reveal the
colleagues and associates in the net of cheating
and duping several others. Even if
accused/applicant has made representations dt.
23.10.2010 and 21.11.2010, that will not mitigate
his primary responsibility which he has showered
upon him by harassed and hapless complainant.
7.Application lacks merit, dismissed. The
observations are prima facie in nature.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE
agp/77-11crapl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for bail/arrest in a cheating case should be granted where prima facie dishonest intention is indicated.
Omprakash Yadavrao Shekhapure
The State of Maharashtra
K.U.Chandiwaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court