The High Court of Bombay rejected an anticipatory bail application. The applicant faced charges for cheating and forgery. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary based on witness statements and bank records, thus rejecting the bail plea.
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.
17-ABA 615-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2019
Navalkishor Annasaheb Shinde ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2019 P.C. :
Nikita Gadgil
1/5
17-ABA 615-19.odt
the informant was interested in getting direct admission for his son for that course, he was in a position to do that work. Believing him, the first informant gave him Rupees Forty Lakhs. The said person, Satyam Chauhan, also obtained further Rupees Ninety Thousand for fees of the college. However, neither any admission was given to the informant's son, nor the money was returned and therefore, the FIR was lodged.
Nikita Gadgil
2/5
17-ABA 615-19.odt
the present applicant had represented to this witness that he was in a position to obtain admission in any course. In March 2016, aforementioned Satyam Chauhan made inquiries with this witness Abhra Rai if knew any person who was in a position to secure admission for students for MBBS course. That time Abhra Rai had informed Satyam Chauhan about present applicant. It is further mentioned by the said witness that the accused Satyam Chauhan gave this witness some amount. The present applicant directed this witness to transfer that amount in the applicant's account held with Bank of India, Pimpri. After a few months, Satyam Chauhan told this witness that he had paid about Rupees Forty Five Lakhs to the present applicant for securing admission of various students for MBBS course, but the applicant had not done that work and had misappropriated that amount.
Nikita Gadgil
3/5
17-ABA 615-19.odt
were regular transactions between Satyam Chauhan and present applicant. The modus operandi was that the present applicant had represented to others that he was in a position to secure admission for students for MBBS course, the amount was accepted by Satyam Chauhan and thereafter, amounts were transferred in the account of the present applicant.
Nikita Gadgil
4/5
17-ABA 615-19.odt
is rejected and disposed of, the applicant is permitted to withdraw this amount, which he has deposited.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Nikita Gadgil
5/5
Navalkishor Annasaheb Shinde
State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
