High Court rejected anticipatory bail to two accused facing cheating charges. The court found prima facie evidence that accused took cash payments for parking from flat buyers without depositing funds to their firm, warranting custodial interrogation.
Application rejected; accused denied pre-arrest bail.
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.
11.ABA223_2017.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 223 OF 2017
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 129 OF 2017 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 223 OF 2017
Dilip Gulabrao Kudale … Intervener in the matter between 1. Ravi Ranjan Kumar Gautam 2. Sonali Ashok Gawade ... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Ms. Sangita Survase i/b. Mr. Nitin Lala Rajguru, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b. Chetan S. Damre, Advocate for the Intervener.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: 13th February, 2017.
P.C.:
This Application is moved by the applicant/accused under section
438 of Cr. P.C. The applicants/accused are apprehending arrest in C.R.
No. 765 of 2016 registered with Wakad Police Station for the offences
punishable under sections 406, 507 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
1 / 4
11.ABA223_2017.doc
a partnership firm, namely, Legacy Lifespaces, which is having a business of building construction. The applicant/accused Ravi Ranjan Kumar was working as Sales Manager and applicant/accused Sonali Gawade was working as Sales Executive in their firm. In the year 2016, the complainant and other partners found that the applicants/accused have directly dealt with the customers in respect of open or cover parking along with respective flats and they have demanded cash of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- for such parking. As per their demand, the flat purchasers have paid cash amount for open and cover parking to applicant nos. 1 and 2, however, the said amount was never deposited in the account of partnership firm. On receiving the complaints of the flat purchasers, the complainant approached the police and the offence was registered against the applicant/accused.
2 / 4
11.ABA223_2017.doc
December, 2016. The applicants/accused are falsely implicated in the offence. Hence, the applicants may be granted pre-arrest bail.
3 / 4
11.ABA223_2017.doc
Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
4 / 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail be granted to the applicants apprehending arrest in a case involving alleged cheating regarding parking payments.
Whether the prima facie evidence collected in the present FIR discloses a colourable claim not to arrest the accused.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Ranjan Kumar Gautam
Sonali Ashok Gawade
The State of Maharashtra
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
