Allowed

Ramakant Baban Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Jul 2015BA/156/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Bench granted bail to two applicants arrested in a cheating case involving financial fraud against multiple investors, imposing conditions including surety bonds, surrender of contact details, and regular court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of two applicants on bail upon furnishing personal bonds with one or two sureties in Rs.30,000/- each, subject to conditions including furnishing address details and regular attendance in cour

Ramakant Baban Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 ba593-15+1

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.593 OF 2015

¶6

Prabhakar Madhukar Nehate ..Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

¶7

Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prashant S. Hagare for the applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.

¶8

AND

¶9

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.156 OF 2015

¶10

Ramakant Baban Jagtap ..Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

¶11

Mr.Rahul S. Kate for the applicant. Mrs.Veera Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.

¶12

CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2015

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

These applications for bail are heard and decided together as both the applicants are arrested in one C.R. No.379/14 and facing charges for the offences punishable under section 420, 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is registered by Manoj Keshavrao Dhorge. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant-accused Prabhakar Nehate, his wife and son contacted the complainant and it was represented to him to invest in various businesses, namely Mahalaxmi Paper Board, L.I.C., Om Enterprises

¶15

2 ba593-15+1

¶16

and Reliance as profitable and the complainant was induced to invest amounts. The complainant believed in the applicant-accused and invested intially an amount of Rs.9,94,9000/-. Along with the complainant, other 18 to 19 persons had also invested money as promises of more profits was made. However, the applicantaccused Prabhakar Nehete could not fulfill the promise of the repayment of more money to the complainant and other investors. Some cheques which were issued to the investors towards payments were bounced and, therefore, finally a complaint was made to police on 17^th November, 2014 that the offence had taken place during the period 5^th June, 2011 to 25^th September, 2014. The applicant-accused Ramakant Jagtap was in the employment of Prabhakar Mohite. He was also arrested in the same offence of cheating. Applicant accused No.1 was arrested on 20^th November, 2014 and applicant-accused No.2 was arrested on 24^th November, 2014. Hence these two applications for bail.

¶17

Learned senior counsel for applicant-accused No.1 and learned counsel for applicant-accused No.2 submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The counsel relied on some documents which are also part of the charge-sheet and also relied on the receipt of payments made to Rajendra Namdev Dhawade at different times. It was submitted that applicant No.1 had in fact paid some amounts to the complainant and his associates and he has sold his property

¶18

3 ba593-15+1

¶19

to repay the amounts. Learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have roots in the society. They reside at Baramati and they are family persons and they are not likely to run away and avoid trial. Learned senior counsel for applicant No.1 has submitted that his wife is working as an Assistant Teacher in a School at Baramati.

¶20

Both the learned prosecutors have opposed the bail applications. They submitted that applicant No.1 has sold immovable property and he is likely to abscond. It is further submitted that applicant Nos.1 & 2 had cheated nearly 18 to 19 persons for Rs.75,00,000/- and, therefore, they are not to be bailed out.

¶21

Perused the FIR and the statements of witnesses. It appears prima facie that the applicants-accused had started some financial venture and the complainant and other persons on his representation made investments of huge amounts. Subsequently, applicant No.1 did not repay the amount as he suffered losses or could not carry on the business further. Prima facie, it appears that applicant No.1 owed financial liabilities towards the complainant and other witnesses. However, applicant No.1 and co-accused applicant No.2, both are in prison since November, 2014. On query about their antecedents, it is informed that they do not have any criminal antecedent. In view of the

¶22

4 ba593-15+1

¶23

submissions made by learned senior counsel and the counsel for the applicants, I am inclined to grant bail on the following terms and conditions

¶24

(i) Applicant No.1 Prabhakar Madhukar Nehate be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount;

¶25

(ii) Applicant No.2 Ramakant Baban Jagtap be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶26

(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the witnesses;

¶27

(v) The applicants shall furnish their residential addresses, cell phone numbers, land-line numbers to the investigating officer;

¶28

(vi) The applicants to attend the Court dates regularly.

¶29

(vi) Both the applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

Ramakant Baban Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Baban Jagtap 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

Vijay Sadasshiv Bhilare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subroto Nilomal Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arvind Maruti Harane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajinkya Suhas Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Justin Richard Jems Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Jayram Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra