This is an application for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving cheating and cheque dishonour. The High Court rejected the application, finding that the offences were grave and serious and that the applicant had prima facie committed the offences.
The application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
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.
1 CriApln1048/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1048 OF 2012
Balasaheb Babanrao Bhingardive
Applicant
V E R S U S
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent
Shri K.N. Lokhande, Advocate for the applicant
Shri D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 9TH MARCH, 2012
PER COURT :
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2.Applicant is named as accused in Crime No.I-487 of
2011 of Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, under Sections
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C.
3.Accusation against the applicant is that:-
(i)He had secured an agreement of sale of plot
standing in the name of plot owner Narsubai
Chandrayya Ramgiri.
(ii)Plot owner Narsubai Chandrayya Ramgiri had not
2 CriApln1048/12
appeared before Notary at the time of execution of
agreement of sale.
(iii) Plot owner Narsubai Chandrayya had not put her
thumb impression on the said document.
(iv) Some other lady put her thumb impression on
the said document impersonating to be Narsubai
Chandrayya.
(v) Accused/applicant has knowledge that the
agreement was not genuine due to said impersonation.
(vi)Accused had cheated the informant and
dishonestly induced him to pay him money.
(vii) At the time of agreement of sale, accused had
received cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- from the
informant.
(viii) Accused handed over a cheque of Rs.
10,00,000/- to the informant, when refund was asked
on the ground that the informant was cheated. The
said cheque has been dishonoured.
(ix)Police have recorded statement of the
applicant, while he was granted anticipatory bail.
4.It is seen from statement of the accused/applicant
that he feels that he himself was cheated. However, fact
3 CriApln1048/12
remains that the accused had received money, has issued the
cheque and it is dishonoured. He has by all his acts prima
facie committed an offence.
5.On what prima facie appears, the offences such as
cheating, dishonour of cheque etc. all are committed by the
applicant. The offences committed by applicant are grave and
serious. Therefore, applicant is not entitled for the relief
sought.
6. This application is rejected.
( A. H. JOSHI, J. )
SRM/9/3/12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief sought in the application for anticipatory bail.
Whether the prima facie facts of cheating and dishonour of cheque justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Balasaheb Babanrao Bhingardive
The State of Maharashtra
A. H. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court