Allowed

Veerdhaval Umesh Chorge v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Aug 2014ABA/761/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed an anticipatory bail application. While noting prima facie evidence of cheating via supply of duplicate and sub-quality gym machinery, the court held custodial interrogation unnecessary as evidence exists with police. Bail was granted with deposit conditions and surrender requirements.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted with conditions to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- with the Magistrate, furnish a PR bond, and attend the police station on specific Mondays.

Veerdhaval Umesh Chorge Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

11.ABA761_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 761 OF 2014

¶6

Veerdhayal Umesh Chorge … Applicant vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State. I.O. Mr. R.B. Patil, PN 139, Islampur Police Station, Kolhapur present.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 25^th August, 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail by the

¶12

applicant/accused, who is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 406, 408, 420, 482, 486, 487, 426 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 7 of 2012 registered with Islampur Police Station.

¶13

It is the case of the original complainant, which is a registered institute, i.e., Sonraj Sevabhavi Sanstha. They wanted to start a well equipped gym with modern machinery and for that purpose, they contacted the applicant/accused, who assured them of supply of branded quality instruments for their gym. He showed them the samples. They

¶14

approved the machinery and paid Rs.14,00,000/ towards the instruments to the accused Jagdish Kshatriya and the applicant/accused is a middleman. After purchasing the machinery, the office bearers the

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

11.ABA761_2014.doc

¶17

complainant/institute found that the machineries started making noise and they were not smooth in operation and not functioning properly, hence they contacted the applicant/accused and coaccused, however, both of them tried to avoid them. Finally when the machineries were opened, the office bearers of the complainant found that the inside part of the machinery were duplicate and then they released that the applicant/accused and coaccused have cheated them of Rs.14,00,000/. Hence, they filed private complaint with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, pursuant to which, the offence was registered.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that though the applicant/accused took initiative in supplying the machineries for gym to the complainantinstitute, coaccused Mr. Jagdish Kshatriya was manufacturing all these instruments. He submitted that he was getting only some percentage of commission on this machinery. He submitted that on 11^th April, 2014 the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur has granted prearrest bail to the coaccused. The learned counsel submitted that learned Judge has observed that prima facie this would not attract an offence of cheating or breach of trust. The learned counsel submitted that it is a transaction of civil nature which can be covered under the Sale of Goods Act, however, no such proceedings are taken out by the original complainant. He further submitted that the complaint is

2 of 4

11.ABA761_2014.doc

old.

Learned APP opposed the Application. She relied on the order passed by the same Judge on 17^th June, 2014 rejecting prearrest bail of this applicant/accused. She submitted that the applicant/accused has forged the agreement and he is the main accused, as he was contacted and relied by the complainant/institute. She further submitted that the applicant/accused has cheated by supplying subquality instruments and have received the benefit of Rs.14,00,000/.

¶23

Perused both the orders of learned Sessions Judge, Islampur allowing the bail application of Jagdish Kshatriya and rejecting the bail application of this applicant/accused. It appears prima facie that the applicant/accused in connivance with the coaccused Jagdish Kshatriya has supplied subquality material to the gym. Prima facie it appears that if at all the applicant/accused is the supplier and the coaccused is the manufacturer or as per the agreement entered into by the applicant/accused, he was the manufacturer that will be considered at the stage of trial. However, at this stage, I am of the view that no custodial interrogation of this applicant/accused is required, as the subquality machinery is available with the police. Moreover, the Institute has not taken out any civil proceedings against the applicant/accused. Hence,

¶24

3 of 4

¶25

11.ABA761_2014.doc

¶26

prearrest bail is granted to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(i) Application is allowed.

¶29

(ii) In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/ with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶30

(iii) The applicant/accused shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/ with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Islampur, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/ on or before 26^th September, 2014 and thereafter Rs.1,00,000/ on or before 28^th October, 2014. Learned Judicial Magistrate to take note of it. The trial Court Judge shall take decision about the said amount at the end of conclusion of the trial.

¶31

(iv) Breach of any of these conditions shall amount to cancellation of prearrest bail granted by this Court forthwith.

¶32

(v) The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and shall cooperate the investigating officer.

¶33

4 of 4

¶34

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Veerdhaval Umesh Chorge v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerdhaval Umesh Chorge 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

Ramdas Gulab Khavale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Bhiwa Jadhvar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Rajaram Desai and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yuvraj Shivaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Suhas Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Haridas Dongare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra