High Court criminal division disposed of two anticipatory bail applications. The court rejected the plea due to investigation requiring custody to ascertain the full scope of transactions involving large sums from multiple investors.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 5 907-ABA-190-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2017
Vaikunth Pralhad Kumbhar .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2017
Mrs.Kamal Dnyaneshwar Shelke .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr.Rahul B. Kadu, Advocate for the Applicant in ABA No.190/17.
Ms.Arazoo Y. Mujawar, Advocate for applicant in ABA No.191/17.
Mr.S.S. Pendnekar, APP for the State/Respondent in ABA No.190/17.
Mr.Prashant Jadhav, APP for the State/Respondent in ABA No.191/17.
API – Mr.Mahendra Kadam (Digi Police Station, Pune).
CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 01st FEBRUARY, 2017.
Nesarikar
907-ABA-190-17.odt
2 / 5
P.C. :
The said amount was to be returned with interest on
Nesarikar
3 / 5 907-ABA-190-17.odt
16/02/2016. However, after the maturity date, when the complainant contacted the applicant/accused Kamal Shelke, at that time she issued a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 09/05/2016. The complainant deposited the said cheque. However, it was dishonoured. So she contacted the applicant/accused Vaikunth Kumbhar and informed that the cheque was dishonoured. She demanded money as she was to return the money to all the 132 women, who had invested in the said savings group. He issued cheque dated 30/07/2016 for the amount of Rs.29,10,528/-. However, she was asked not to deposit the same. She was called on 02/08/2016 in the office of the group. So Pramila Darekar again went to the said office and demanded money. At that time, the complainant, his wife Rani Kumbhar and others were present and they gave evasive answers to the complainant. Thereafter complainant realized that she alongwith other women was deceived by the applicants/accused and therefore she gave information to the police, pursuant to which the offence was registered. Hence these bail applications for pre-arrest bail.
Nesarikar
4 / 5 907-ABA-190-17.odt
Nesarikar
5 / 5 907-ABA-190-17.odt
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Nesarikar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether preemptive bail application by accused prosecuted for cheating under IPC sections 420 and 406 read with section 34 should be allowed.
Vaikunth Pralhad Kumbhar
Kamal Dnyaneshwar Shelke
State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhaktar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
