Bipin Kumar Shashibhushan Choudhari @ Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jul 2014ABA/691/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Criminal Appellate Benches considered an application for anticipatory bail under the Indian Penal Code in a case involving allegations of cheating through false employment promises. The court found a prima facie case and denied bail, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation. A stay on the order was granted pending Supreme Court filing.

What did the court decide?

Contemplated liberty stay: The execution and operation of this rejection order is stayed for a period of three weeks from the date of the order.

Bipin Kumar Shashibhushan Choudhari @ Yadav Vs the State… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.691 OF 2014

¶4

Bipinkumar S Choudhari @ Yadav .. Applicant. V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Abhijit A. Desai, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A.Mane,APP for the respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶8

DATE : 21^st July, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The applicant has moved this application for anticipatory bail under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶11

registered with Shahupuri Police Station,

¶12

District: Kolhapur, under C.R. No.8 of 2014. It is the case of the complainant that the

¶13

applicant accused is Class IV employee

¶14

employed in the Central Railway Kolhapur. He

¶15

represented the complainant and other 14

¶16

Page No.1 of 8

¶17

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶18

persons that he is in a position to get their children employed in the Central Railway. The complainant on believing his representation, initially deposited Rs.50,000/- with the applicant and requested him to give job to his son in Central railway. He also sold out ornaments of his wife to raise funds. The applicant accused promised that his work will

¶19

be done within 8 days. Thereafter he also demanded money on number of occasions. The applicant in all paid Rs.2,50,000/-. He disclosed this fact to some other persons in

¶20

the vicinity and accordingly thereafter 14 persons attracted towards this proposal. They paid amounts for the appointment as Ticket Collector Rs.3,00,000/-, for the appointment of clerk Rs.2,00,000/- and for the appointment of peon Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. The said amount was nearly Rs.65,00,000/- and the complainant thereafter transferred the said amount in the account of the applicant accused

¶21

Page No.2 of 8

¶22

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶23

in February, 2012. However, nothing happened

¶24

for a year. Whenever the complainant enquired

¶25

about employment to his son and the children

¶26

of other persons, the applicant accused promised that the recruitment would take place

¶27

in March, 2013. At that time the applicant told that they would be recruited and they should not worry about it. The complainant

¶28

asked about assurance, the applicant accused

¶29

handed over 8 different cheques of H.D.F.C. Bank. Those cheques were deposited in State Bank of India, Rahimatpur Branch. However,

¶30

cheques were bounced. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant’s son and the

¶31

children of the other persons were never employed. The applicant accused avoided to

¶32

return the money of all the persons. Thus, he

¶33

has cheated the complainant and other persons

¶34

for an amount of Rs.65,00,000/-. Therefore, he gave complaint.

¶35

The learned counsel for the applicant

¶36

Page No.3 of 8

¶37

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶38

accused has submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false. The F.I.R. is

¶39

silent in respect of mode of the payment. The complainant though stated that the applicant has allegedly deceived 14 persons, however, those 14 persons have not come forward till today and have not filed separate complaints. The learned counsel pointed out the document

¶40

annexed to the application especially a deed

¶41

of partnership which has taken place on 20.12.2011 between Shravani Kumari the wife of applicant and the complainant in respect of

¶42

running a business of dress material and an amount of Rs.10 lacs was invested by the wife of applicant and Rs. 1 lac was invested by the

¶43

complainant. He further pointed out the vouchers of the bank whereby he has paid money to the complainant. He also pointed out the cash receipts of various amounts. He submitted

¶44

that all these facts have been suppressed by

¶45

the complainant while giving the complaint.

¶46

Page No.4 of 8

¶47

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶48

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this shows that the applicant accused and complainant were having business transactions and the moneys were transacted between the parties, therefore, the allegations made in

¶49

the complaint were camouflaged. He further submitted that as per allegations though 8 cheques were bounced, no complaint under

¶50

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was given by the complainant. He submitted that the applicant is innocent and he be given protection.

¶51

application. The learned APP pointed out the

¶52

statements of witnesses whose names are

¶53

appearing in the complaint. She submitted that the statements of witnesses disclose that the applicant accused has promised these persons that he would give jobs to their children in

¶54

the Central Railway and therefore, they paid amounts. The amounts were transferred in the

¶55

Page No.5 of 8

¶56

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶57

account of the complainant. She submitted

¶58

that in all 32 persons are cheated and the

¶59

police are recording the statement of those persons and for that purpose custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.

¶60

On perusal of the complaint and after

¶61

going through the documents which were pointed

¶62

out by the learned APP, prima face case of

¶63

cheating is made out against applicant accused. It is true that the complainant has

¶64

not stated about the partnership between the complainant and the wife of the applicant

¶65

accused. Assuming that such partnership deed

¶66

has been executed between them and the moneys

¶67

as stated have been transacted between them,

¶68

yet in view of statement of the witnesses it cannot be a ground to say that accused has not committed the offence and charges against the applicant accused are false. Statements of

¶69

nearly 8 to 9 witnesses are placed before me, the names of all these persons are different

¶70

Page No.6 of 8

¶71

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶72

than the names which are appearing in the cash

¶73

vouchers which are annexed herewith. These witnesses in an unambiguous words have stated that they were given promises by the applicant accused to provide employment in the Central Railway and therefore, believing such representations they paid various amounts to the applicant accused. They stated that they have deposited the amounts in the account of

¶74

applicant accused. The learned counsel has submitted that in the F.I.R. complainant has stated only 14 names who had paid money to the applicant accused. However, the learned APP submitted that in all 32 persons are deceived and the police are recording statement of all

¶75

those persons. Prima facie no discrepancy is found in the papers of investigation and payments made to some other persons by the applicant accused. At this stage I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. In such a

¶76

case of cheating custodial interrogation is

¶77

Page No.7 of 8

¶78

5 ABA 691 OF2014

¶79

necessary to get all the clues. The application is rejected.

¶80

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants wants to challenge this order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, seeks stay of the order. In view of his submissions, the execution and operation of this order is stayed for a period of three weeks from today.

¶81

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶82

Page No.8 of 8

Bipin Kumar Shashibhushan Choudhari @ Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Kumar Shashibhushan Choudhari @ Yadav 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

Eknath Dattu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Halimabi Hussain Parande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Jalindar More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aniruddha Vishnu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhanaji Sadashiv Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Bhagwan Matsagar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra