Allowed

Punit S/O Vijaykumar Madhok v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Apr 2013ABA/337/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The court held that the available evidence did not demonstrate intent to deceive at the inception, rendering the case prima facie civil in nature, warranting bail protection.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail upon arrest, subject to conditions to cooperate with investigation from 15.4.2013 to 17.4.2013 between 4 to 6 p.m.

Punit S/O Vijaykumar Madhok Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

ABA-337-13

¶2

skc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 337 OF 2013

¶5

Punit s/o. Vijay Kumar Madhok .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr. A. P. Mundargi – Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. Anand Chaure for Applicant.

¶7

Mr. S. A. Shaikh - APP for State.

¶8

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J. DATED : 10TH APRIL, 2013.

¶9

1] Heard.

¶10

2] Applicant herein has been named as accused in Crime No.61 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara Police Station under sections 406, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶11

3] Substance of accusation can be summarised as follows: (I) Applicant represented to the complainant that an apartment is available at Dubai and buying it will entitle the applicant to have visa too.

¶12

(II) After making substantial payment of Rs.12,00,000/-, it was revealed that the property proposed to be given is not at Dubai but about 200 kms. away from Dubai.

1/3

ABA-337-13

skc

4] Learned APP was called to point out from evidence collected by the investigating officer as to whether the investigating officer has come across that element of cheating existed on the date and time of making promise.

¶17

5] Bare statements that the applicant works at Dubai and has some connection with the company with whom the apartment is booked and upon disappointment of the complainant, the accused has refunded part of the amount is the material collected by the investigating officer

¶18

6] So far the investigating officer has not been able to lay hands on any evidence revealing intention to deceive or cheat at the very inception.

¶19

7] If the material at the hands of the investigating officer is seen, from any angle it does not demonstrate that the element of cheating existed on the date and time when he had represented to the complainant.

¶20

8] In this background the case prima facie turns out to be of a civil nature, therefore the applicant is entitled for the protection sought for.

¶21

9] In the result, application is allowed with following directions:-

2/3

ABA-337-13

skc

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant furtherance to Crime No.61 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara Police Station under sections 406, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand).

¶26

(B) Applicant shall remain present before the I.O. concerned for the purpose of cooperating him for investigation from 15.4.2013 to 17.4.2013 between 4 to 6 p.m. and thereafter as and when called by I.O. by notice.

¶27

(C) The applicant shall furnish within three days the postal address, cell phone number, landline number and name of contact person for sending message and/or information in the event the I.O. requires personal attendance of the applicant for the purpose of investigation.

¶28

(D) Applicant shall every time before leaving India report to police and furnish to the I.O. his contact number and address for communication.

¶29

(E) Applicant shall report to the I.O. as and when he comes back to India and he would notify his probable date of leaving India.

¶30

(A. H. JOSHI, J.)

¶31

Chandka

¶32

3/3

Punit S/O Vijaykumar Madhok v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punit S/O Vijaykumar Madhok 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

Suryakant Ramkrushna Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Minakshi Suryakant Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Govindrao Burgute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Seema Rajesh Jain Vs the Senior Police Inspector and Anr.

Amitabha De and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Sabir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra