CrPC anticipatory bail application rejected in a cheating case involving a fraudulent property sale. The court held that custodial interrogation is necessary as the FIR reveals clear elements of fraud, including undisclosed prior sale and mortgage of the property, and the belated lodging of the FIR does not weaken this conclusion.
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.
7-ABA-242-19.odt
1 / 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.242 OF 2019
Sanjay Shivnarayan Bhutada .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2019
P.C. :
with C.R. No.I-246/2018 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik City under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.
Mamta Kale
2 / 6 7-ABA-242-19.odt
one advertisement in respect of a property. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the purchaser could purchase a shop. That shop would be given on rent and after five years the shop could be further sold for twice the amount for which it was purchased. The scheme looked attractive. Therefore, the first informant contacted the applicant. The applicant assured that the scheme was workable and could earn handsome profits for the first informant. The applicant showed him property at Nashik bearing survey Nos.659/3/2, 659/4/1, final plot No.365/A, 366/B. The applicant showed him a sanctioned plan dated 13/4/2005. He suggested that the informant should purchase Shop No.4. Accordingly, the informant agreed to purchase that shop admeasuring 238 Sq. Ft. The informant and the applicant entered into a registered sale deed dated 30/4/2009. The total price was fixed at Rs.10,62,000/- and in addition, the informant was to pay Rs.5 Lakhs by way of deposit. From time to time, the informant paid in all Rs.9,62,000/-. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the applicant told the informant that he would obtain the loan to the tune of Rs.6 Lakhs from M/s. NRI Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. The
3 / 6 7-ABA-242-19.odt
informant was told that the loan was sanctioned. The possession was given to the informant by executing a possession receipt. Thereafter, the applicant told the first informant that if the shop was given to the applicant on rent, he would deposit the rent directly in the loan account of the informant. The applicant made a show that he was directly depositing the rent in the loan account with NRI Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. The applicant was initially handing over some receipts to that effect. But since the year 2014, no such receipts were given. The informant started making inquiries. On 17/4/2015, when he went to that shop he saw a notice whereby the property was already attached in the name of a third person. The first informant made further inquiry and he came to know that the applicant had already sold said shop to one Vitthal Aher in the year 2006 itself. Thereafter, the applicant had mortgaged the same property with Akola Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The informant realised that the entire transaction was fraudulent and he was cheated for the amount which he had paid to the applicant. On this basis, the FIR was lodged. The informant also came to know that no such finance company by name NRI
4 / 6 7-ABA-242-19.odt
Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. was in existence.
for the Applicant and Mr. S. H. Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.
5 / 6 7-ABA-242-19.odt
6 / 6 7-ABA-242-19.odt
paid to the applicant. The investigation needs to be conducted in respect of a fraudulent loan transaction purportedly entered into with NRI Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. The applicant's custodial interrogation for all these purposes is necessary. The submission that the FIR is lodged belatedly does not have much force because the informant had explained in his FIR itself that in the year 2014 he came to know that the property was mortgaged with some other bank. Thereafter, he took time to get the details and go to the root of the fraudulent nature of transaction entered into by the applicant. After obtaining basic information, FIR was lodged. In this view of the matter, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Therefore, there is no merit in the application. Hence, application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in the present cheating case under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC.
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation of the alleged fraudulent transaction.
Sanjay Shivnarayan Bhutada
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
