Dismissed

Hiren Rameshbhai Mepani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Mar 2019ABA/526/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought anticipatory bail for alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving diamonds. The court rejected the bail application, finding sufficient material to indicate the applicant's complicity and failure to return the property. However, interim relief under a prior order was extended for two weeks pending a Supreme Court challenge.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief granted by earlier order extended for two weeks; bail application rejected.

Hiren Rameshbhai Mepani Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

osk

¶2

18-aba-526-2019.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 526 OF 2019

¶5

Hiren Rameshbhai Mepani	…	Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra	…	Respondent

¶6

Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Applicant. Mr.R.M. Pethe, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.

¶8

DATE : 20^th March 2019.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1] This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 19 of 2019 dated 29/01/2019 registered with B.K.C. Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

2] Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the record of investigation.

¶12

3] The First Information Report is lodged by Mr.Hardik Salia.

¶13

1/4

¶14

osk 18-aba-526-2019.odt

¶15

It is the prosecution case that the first informant is in the business of trading of diamonds. That the co-accused Mr.Nilesh Shah took 509.65 carets of diamonds amounting to Rs.1,01,50,334/- from the informant under the pretext of showing it to other interested purchasers. That the co-accused neither returned the said diamonds nor paid the consideration of it to the first informant. In the premise, the First Information Report is lodged.

¶16

4] Mr.Saraogi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has nothing to do with the present crime. He submitted that in the report filed by the Investigating Agency before the Sessions Court, so also the application for bail preferred by the co-accused Nilesh Shah denotes some different version of facts. It is submitted that, as the applicant is not beneficiary of any of the part involved in the present crime, his custodial interrogation for recovery of the said property and further investigation is not necessary. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant may be protected by pre-arrest bail by allowing the present application.

¶17

5] I have perused the record of investigation.

¶18

The record of investigation clearly indicates that the

¶19

2/4

¶20

osk 18-aba-526-2019.odt

¶21

principal accused Nilesh Shah has handed over the afore-stated diamonds to the applicant. The investigation further indicates that there are various other traders in the Diamond Market to whom the principal accused Nilesh Shah has also cheated by adopting the same modusoperandi. The statements on record indicate that Nilesh Shah i.e. the principal accused by making false promises and/or representations had collected substantial quantity of diamonds from the said traders and has subsequently defalcated it.

¶22

The record of investigation further clearly indicates that the co-accused Nilesh Shah has handed over a total quantity of 800 carets of diamonds to his childhood friend i.e. the applicant herein. The investigation carried out till date indicates that even when the said coaccused Nilesh Shah requested the applicant to return the said diamonds, the applicant has failed to do so.

¶23

6] The record of investigation prima-facie indicates that, there is sufficient material available to show the complicity of the applicant in the present crime. The property involved in the present crime is yet to be recovered.

¶24

3/4

¶25

osk 18-aba-526-2019.odt

¶26

7] In view of the above and after taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the serious allegations against the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that, the applicant does not deserve to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶27

Application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶28

8] At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant intends to challenge the present order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the interim relief granted by Order dated 6^th March 2019 may be continued for a period of two weeks from today.

¶29

In view thereof, interim relief granted by Order dated 6^th March 2019 to remain in force for a period of two weeks from today.

¶30

4/4

Hiren Rameshbhai Mepani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiren Rameshbhai Mepani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarfaraz Abdul Latif Halai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nusrat Yusuf Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Ali Suleman Raeen Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikrant Bhimsen Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Premji Lalan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vimla Mukesh Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra