Dismissed

Ashok Baliram Yadav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Jul 2014ABA/420/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicants faced charges of forgery and cheating regarding loans obtained by bogus persons in the name of a Credit Society. The Court held the case to be a fit case for bail rejection due to prima facie evidence of fraud and the need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected, and the intervening criminal application was disposed of.

Ashok Baliram Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

905.ABA420_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2014

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2014

¶7

Ashok Baliram Yadav & Anr. … Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent And Vishwanath Jagannath Vaze … Applicant/Intervener

¶8

Mr. Prakash Naik i/b.Mr. Datta Mane, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶9

Mr. M.G. Shukla, Advocate for the applicant/intervener in Cri. APPP/309/2014.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 2^nd July, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Criminal Application No. 309 of 2014 filed by the original complainant for intervention is allowed.

¶13

Criminal Application No. 420 of 2014 is moved by the applicants/accused for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr. P.C. The applicant/accused no. 1 was the Secretary and applicant/accused no. 2 was treasurer of Dhan Chhaya Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. are facing charges of forgery, misappropriation and cheating of the said Credit Society. The offence is registered at C.R. No. 211/2013 on 9^th May, 2014 with Borivli Police Station, Mumbai punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of complainant Vishwanath J. Vaze,

¶14

1 Of 4

¶15

905.ABA420_2014

¶16

who is an administrator of the said Dhan Chhaya Credit Society.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicants/accused in connivance with each other and with co-accused have committed fraud and cheated the said Society for Rs.67,68,000/- approximately. The accused have obtained loans in the name of bogus persons and have used the said amount for their personal gain. They have also committed some other fraudulent activities which led the Credit Society to a financial crises. An administrator is appointed to supervise and regulate the work of the Credit Society.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have not committed any forgery or fraud with a view to obtain monetary gain for themselves. He argued that as per the allegations of the prosecution, 12 persons have obtained the loan from the Credit Society, however, those 12 persons have approached the police. Their statements are recorded. The recovery proceedings are initiated against them. He further submitted that the chairman of the said Credit Society is granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.

¶19

This Application is opposed by the learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant. Learned APP and learned counsel for the

¶20

2 Of 4

¶21

905.ABA420_2014

¶22

complainant submitted that the applicants/accused and co-accused have submitted bogus documents for the loan in the name of the persons who in fact did not apply for the loan. The persons who were shown as guarantors have refused that they have ever signed such papers and stood as guarantors for these persons. Learned APP produced the statements of those persons in whose names various loans were obtained and also the statements of the persons who refused that they stood guarantors of these persons. Learned APP submitted that the police required custody of these accused to find out how they managed to forge the documents and obtained the loan and whether the amount involved in the offence was siphoned.

¶23

Perused the complaint and the statements of witnesses. Till today, as per the case of the prosecution they could find 12 persons in whose names the loans were obtained fraudulently. Those persons have denied that they have ever asked for loan. The photographs appearing on the documents of those persons and the photographs of the guarantors which allegedly offered themselves as guarantors are different. Prima facie , there is evidence of forgery and misappropriation of the amount. The learned APP has also pointed out that till today the police could get the information of 25 cheques which were issued to different persons, however, those cheques were deposited in the account of Dhan Chhaya Credit Society and

¶24

3 Of 4

¶25

905.ABA420_2014

¶26

subsequently the amounts were withdrawn by the applicants/accused and co-accused. This evidence is prima facie sufficient to hold that the applicants/accused are involved in this evidence. It is a Credit Society where the public money and public trust is involved. Without custodial interrogation of applicants/accused, the entire fraud cannot be detected. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the protection of prearrest bail to this applicants/accused are to be granted. Hence, the Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶27

Criminal Application No. 309 of 2014 is also accordingly disposed of.

¶28

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused wants to challenge this order before the Supreme Court and hence seeks time. Hence, the operation of this order is stayed till 17^th July, 2014.

¶29

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶30

4 Of 4

Ashok Baliram Yadav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Baliram Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Somani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munir Faszluddin Tickley and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Singhadevi H. Gupta and Ors. Vs M/S. Narvin Chemicals Private Limited and Ors.

Mahadev Ganpati Halvankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Ganpati Halvankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Santosh Borse Vs the State of Maharashtra