In this anticipatory bail application, the applicant sought bail for alleged offences under IPC Sections 408/34 regarding financial fraud and PPF withdrawals. The application was rejected as not a fit case, requiring custodial interrogation.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected; case not a fit case for 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.
ABA 681-17.doc
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.681 OF 2017
Mukesh Kumar Singh alias Sharma .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Ms Saina Ansari i/b. Mr.H.K.Sayyed, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.S.Hulke, APP, for the Respondent – State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 03.05.2017
P.C.
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
bail in connection with C.R.No.572 of 2016 registered with the Pimpri Police Station, Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 408 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case. She submits that the Applicant was only working as a supervisor in
the Complainant's Company i. e. Success Enterprises, Security Agency. She submitted that the Applicant had no concern with
1 of 4
ABA 681-17.doc
the fraud and withdrawal of the PPF amount.
5. Perused the papers.
2 of 4
ABA 681-17.doc
disclosed to the said persons that he had handed over the money to the Applicant and that he would pay them their salary. He has further stated that he called the Applicant and asked him why he had not disbursed payments/salary to the employees, however, the Applicant gave evasive replies. Thereafter, the Complainant learnt that the Applicant and co-accused - Sanjaysingh were withdrawing the PPF amounts from the accounts of the Security Guards. The said persons were also showing non-existing security guards and were withdrawing salaries from their accounts and were utilizing the said amounts for their benefit. The fraud with regard to the PPF amount was to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. From a perusal of the papers of investigation, it is apparent that the Applicant was involved in the said fraud. There are statements of staff to show the complicity of the Applicant. This Court vide Order dated 04.04.2017 passed in ABA No.497 of 2017 has rejected the Application of co-accused – Sanjaysingh, brother-in-law of the Applicant, in whose account several amounts were also diverted.
3 of 4
ABA 681-17.doc
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail is a fit case for the applicant alleged in cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary given the nature of allegations and material on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukesh Kumar Singh alias Sharma
The State of Maharashtra
REVATI MOHITE DERE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
