Allowed

Ghanshyam Shantaram Dethe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Nov 2014ABA/1052/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal anticipatory bail application, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant. The offence involved was cheque-dishonour under Section 138 NI Act arising from a private hand loan dispute. The court considered the prima facie appearance that custodial interrogation was unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. In the event of arrest, applicant to be enlarged on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- and sureties.

Ghanshyam Shantaram Dethe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 902.1052.14 aba

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1052 OF 2014

¶3

Ghanshyam Shantaram Dethe

¶4

.....Applicant

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

....Respondent

¶8

Ms. Neeta Karnik i/b Preeti Ratan Bondre for Applicant Mr. Santosh Yelve i/b Mr. Suyog S. Pawar for Respondent Ms. P. P. Shinde APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2014

¶10

PC :

¶11

Heard. This is an application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in crime no. 7 of 2013 registered at Mulund Police Station pursuant to the order under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code by 27^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund.

¶12

It is the case of prosecution that added respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate alleging therein that he had

¶13

ism

¶14

2 902.1052.14 aba

¶15

extended a hand loan in favour of present applicant to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. That the mother of the applicant had also at one stage assured the complainant that the amount would be returned to him in due course. No doubt it is a private transaction between two parties. Applicant herein had issued 3 cheques to the complainant towards the payment of hand loan extended to them.

¶16

Learned counsel for the complainant fairly submits that he has received different cheques. The first cheque was to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Second cheque was to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- and the third cheque was to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/-. This would clearly indicate that the applicant had bonafide intentions to repay the amount which was extended to him by hand loan. Learned counsel for the complainant has fairly submitted that there were technical difficulties in complying with statutory provisions under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, private complaint was lodged.

¶17

Apparently on the face of record, it appears to be a private transaction and custodial interrogation would be unwarranted and unjustified. Hence,

¶18

ism

¶19

3 902.1052.14 aba

¶20

applicant deserve grant of pre-arrest bail. Observations made herein above are prima facie in nature and shall not be considered for the purpose of quashing of F.I.R. or discharge application.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(i) Application is allowed.

¶23

(ii) In the event of arrest, applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶24

(iii) Applicant shall co-operate with the investigating agency to the best of his capacity.

¶25

Application stands disposed of.

¶26

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

¶27

ism

Ghanshyam Shantaram Dethe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Shantaram Dethe 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Kisan Bansode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharsahtra

Subhash Kisan Bansode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharsahtra

Vinod Maruti Ijare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganpat Dharma Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Sohel Mohd Narul Huq Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Gaffar S/O Shanaaz Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra