Vidya Rajesh Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court rejected the plea. The court found the applicant actively participated in a fraud scheme, received funds from investors, and was necessary to locate for investigation into the misappropriation of money.
What did the court decide?
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; custody of the applicant deemed necessary.
What the court decided
903.ABA127_2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 127 OF 2017
Sou. Vidya Rajesh Kamble ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Priyal Sarda i/b. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Thakery, APP for the State.
CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 25th January, 2017.
P.C.:
- This Application is moved for pre-arrest bail under section 438 of Cr. P.C. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 MPID Act in C.R. No. 283 of 2016 registered with ondhawa Police Station, Pune.
- The applicant/wife is the wife of principal accused Rajesh Kamble, who is the sole proprietor of Evolve Consultancy situated at Pune. It is the case of the complainant Abid Ahmed Shaikh that in the month of February, his friend introduced him to Rajesh Kamble, husband of the applicant/accused in his office at Brahma Majestic Shop no. 36. At that time, Rajesh told that on investment, his firm offers a very good interest and the principal amount remains intact. As the offer was very attractive, the complainant accepts it. He also informs his family members about the said offer. Believing on the representation made by Rajesh Kamble, the
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted to the applicant who actively participated in a fraud scheme involving multiple investors.
Whether custody of the applicant is necessary to investigate the disposal of funds and location of investors.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sou. Vidya Rajesh Kamble
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
MRIDULA BHATKAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court