Allowed

Arun S/O Raman More and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Oct 2016APPLN/5484/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad granted pre-arrest bail to three accused persons (wife and two brothers-in-law of the main accused). The court found ingredients of criminal breach of trust missing against them as they were not involved in the primary transaction or deception.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted; interim order confirmed; applicants directed to attend police station on alternate Sundays.

Arun S/O Raman More and Anr. Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

( 1 ) cria5452.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5452 OF 2016

¶4

Megha w/o. Nandkishor Sonar..Applicant
Age. 40 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Anturli, Tq. Muktainagar,
Dist. Jalgaon.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶5

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5484 OF 2016

¶6

`1.`	`Arun s/o. Raman More`	`..` `Appl`	`icants`
	`Age. 32 years, Occ. Labour,` `R/o. Ramchandra Nagar,` `Station Road, Tq. Raver,` `Dist. Jalgaon.`
`2.`	`Ghanshayam Raman More,`
	`Age. 38 years, Occ. Labour,` `R/o. As above.`
	`Versus`
`The`	`State of Maharashtra`	`..` `Resp`	`ondent`
`Mr.H` `appl`	`.P. Jadhav h/f. Mr. A.K. Tiwari,` `icants.`	`Advocate`	`for the`
`Mr.S`	`.B. Yawalkar, A.P.P. for respondent`	`/State.`

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5860 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5452 OF 2016 (For assist to P.P.)

¶9

Kamlabai Sarangdhar Sonar..Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Megha w/o. Nandkishor Sonar & Anr...Respondents

¶12

Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. H.P. Jadhav h/f. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶13

CORAM : A.M. BADAR,J. DATED : 20.10.2016

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

1.Applicants Megha Sonar, Arun More and Ghanshayam
More, who are accused in Crime No.138 of 2016 registered
with Muktai Nagar Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the
offences punishable under sections 406, 468, 420, 506,
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, by these applications
are seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶16

2.Heard learned Counsel for the applicants as well
as learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel for the informant.
Learned A.P.P. as well as learned Counsel for the
informant argued that charge for offence punishable under

¶17

( 3 ) cria5452.16

¶18

section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code is levelled
against the present applicants and their custodial
interrogation is warranted because of magnanimity of the
financial offence committed by accused persons. It is
argued that custody of applicants before this Court is
required for effective investigation of the crime in
question, in which several creditors are cheated by
accused persons, by seeking entrustment of their amount
for business purpose by accused persons.

¶19

3.I have carefully considered the rival
submissions and also perused papers of investigation
including the F.I.R. lodged by Kamlabai Sonar. It is
revealed from papers of investigation that the main
accused Nandkishor Sonar was running a jewellery shop in
the name as "Ekvira Jwellers". Statements of witness so
also F.I.R. shows that he alluded several persons to give
hand loan to him and also passed receipts of that hand
loan in their favour. For refunding that hand-loan, main
accused Nandkishor Sonar had also issued cheques to the
creditors but subsequently those cheques were
dishonoured. Nandkishor Sonar is reported to be
absconding. Statements of creditors recorded by the
investigator go to show that they had entrusted the
amount to Nandkishor Sonar. Statement of investors does
not show that applicants before this Court in any manner

¶20

concerned with that entrustment. They had not attended
such transactions. Statement of investors/creditors shows
that when they approached the jwellery shop for refund of
amount entrsuted with Nandkishor Sonar, he was found to
be absconding. Statements are specific to the effect that
after main accused Nandkishor Sonar absconded, present
applicants who are his brothers-in-law and wife took over
the work of Ekvira Jwellers. In this view of the matter
ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust
defined by section 405 of the Indian Penal Code i.e.
entrustment of property is missing so far as present
applicants are concerned. Similarly as the present
applicants were not reported to be present at the time of
extending hand loan or accepting deposits by Nandkishor
Sonar, element of deception played by them is, prima
facie, absent. Amassment of property in the name of
applicant Megha, who is wife of main accused Nandkishor,
will have different consequence after trial.

¶21

4.In this view of the matter, custodial
interrogation of the applicants in this crime is not
warranted. Therefore, the order :-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

i.The application is allowed.

¶24

ii.Interim order dated 4th October, 2016,
is confirmed on same terms and conditions.

¶25

iii.In addition, the applicants to attend
the concerned police station on every alternate
Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. till
filing of the charge-sheet and should co-operate
the investigator.

¶26

iv.In view of disposal of main
application, Criminal Application No. 5860 of
2016 stands disposed of.

¶27

[A.M. BADAR,J.]

¶28

snk/2016/OCT16/ cria5452.16

Arun S/O Raman More and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun S/O Raman More 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

Manoj S/O Mukinda Kirtane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Akbar S/O Shaikh Akhtar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanif S/O Ibrahim Pathan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar S/O Balasaheb Pakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Megha W/O Nandkishor Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Madhavrao More Vs the State of Maharashtra