Dismissed

Sanjay Kamlakar Gaikwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Apr 2012ABA/338/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal anticipatory bail application, the court examined allegations of cheating involving an estate broker and a third party. Based on an investigation revealing a deception, the judge denied bail to the first applicant and noted no action against the second.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected against Applicant No.1; no orders passed regarding Applicant No.2.

Sanjay Kamlakar Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 aba338.12

¶2

Rng

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRI.ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.338 OF 2012

¶5

1.Sanjay Kamlakar Gaikwad 2.Smt Jyoti Sanjay Gaikwad .. Applicants

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.K.Raj I.b.Mr.Amar Babar for Applicants Mr.J.P Kharge APP for Respondents.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

 Heard.

¶11

I have gone through the letter written by the First Informant Sanjay Kumar to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes) on 18.9.2009 levelling allegations against the Applicant No.1 and one Satish Joshi, a coaccused. I have also gone through his statement recorded by the DCB,CID, Mumbai on 19.4.2010. I have also gone through the statement of the First Informant recorded on 29.5.2010.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicant that money had been received, admittedly, by

¶13

2 aba338.12

¶14

one Satish Joshi. It is further submitted that the

¶15

Applicant is merely an Estate Broker who had introduced the said Satish Joshi to the First informant Krishna Kumar. It is also submitted that

¶16

the said Satish Joshi was arrested and released on bail.

¶17

In short, substance of the contentions advanced by the Applicant is that he was acting bonafide and he did not know that the said Satish Joshi was a dishonest person.

¶18

It is submitted by the Investigating Officer that

¶19

in the course of the investigation it was revealed that the person who had posed as Satish Joshi was actually a person named as ' Santosh Chavan .' That, that person was not Satish Joshi but, was Santosh Chavan was allegedly, known to the present Applicant No.1. There is basis for such a claim of the Investigating Officer.

¶20

If in view of these facts, an inference that the Applicant No.1 has deceived the First informant is drawn, then it cannot be said to be wrong or improper. It cannot be said, therefore that no prima facie exists against the Applicant no.1.

¶21

3 aba338.12

¶22

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to grant Anticipatory bail to the Applicant no.1.

¶23

As regards Applicant no.2, there are absolutely no allegations levelled by anyone. The Investigating Officer categorically states before me that she is not found to be involved in the alleged offence and her arrest is not at all contemplated. This statement of the Investigating Officer is accepted. It is therefore, not necessary to pass any orders in favour of Applicant no.2.

¶24

The Application, so far as it relates to the

¶25

Applicant no.1, is rejected.

Sanjay Kamlakar Gaikwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kamlakar Gaikwad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Sanjivan Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Champalal Kothqri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anchor Electricals Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Maruti Thombare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Maruti Thombare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dadu @ Dnyndeo Bapurao and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra