The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a cheating case involving a failed travel tour arrangement. The court found no dishonest intent as payments were made to foreign parties and held that the dispute was essentially civil.
Released on bail via P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
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.
1 17-BA No.942-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.942 OF 2019
Amit Kishor Shah ] … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ] … Respondent
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.994 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.942 OF 2019
Dr. Avesh Palod ] ...Intervener IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Amit Kishor Shah ] … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ] … Respondent
Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi i/b Ms. Manjula Biswas, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Prashant Jadhav, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. Vivekanand V. Krishnan, Advocate for the Intervener.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 28th AUGUST, 2019.
P. C. :-
1 of 7
2 17-BA No.942-19.doc
C.R.No.364/2018 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, District
Nashik u/sec. 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2 of 7
3 17-BA No.942-19.doc
The tour was arranged between 10/11/2018 to 18/11/2018. However, on 29/10/2018, the informant received a notice mentioning that, the applicant was suffering losses in the tour and he was not in a position to return the money. On these allegations, the FIR is lodged.
3 of 7
4 17-BA No.942-19.doc
the informant's association had not brought 120 members and instead only 78 persons paid money to the applicant and therefore, it was not possible to arrange the tour within that amount. Mr.Mundargi pointed out that, the applicant had sent notice dated 29/09/2018 pointing out that informant's association had failed to comply with their obligations and the contract was liable to be cancelled. In the notice dated 08/10/2018, it was mentioned that, the informant's association failed to honour their commitment made under the agreement dated 19/07/2018. It was liable to be revoked. He further submitted that another notice was sent on 24/10/2018 wherein it was mentioned that, since the informant's association had not fulfilled their part of the contract, the applicant's firm was forfeiting the amount except Rs.10 Lakhs which would be returned. Immediately, thereafter the FIR was lodged by the first informant on 29/10/2018 and the applicant was arrested on the same date. He submitted that, the applicant is only a representative of the firm. According to the prosecution case, Accused No.2 – Naomi Walker is the owner of firm who was still absconding. He submitted that, the present applicant was merely working in the firm and the money was deposited initially in the account of the absconding accused.
Purti Parab
5 17-BA No.942-19.doc
5 of 7
6 17-BA No.942-19.doc
any reasons. The correspondence or the notice sent by the applicant has no where shows that, he was terminating the contract without assigning any reasons. In fact, he called upon the informant's association to fulfill their part of the obligation. Therefore, this clause cannot come to the aid of the informant in submitting that the applicant's firm was liable to refund the entire amount. In any case, it will at best be a civil dispute between the parties. As discussed earlier, the allegations did not show that, the applicant had any dishonest intention as he had made payments to other parties. As far as the balance amount is concerned, he has offered to pay Rs.10 Lakhs which was not acceptable to the first informant. The informant's association is entitled to approach other forums to claim damages in accordance with law. However, for that purpose further custody of the present applicant is not necessary. Even as per the prosecution case, the owner of the firm is absconding. The money has not gone to the account of the present applicant. The applicant is already in custody since 29/10/2018. He has no criminal antecedents. In this view of the matter, further custody of the present applicant is not necessary and therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Hence, the following order.
Purti Parab
7 17-BA No.942-19.doc
ORDER
accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
7 of 7
Purti Parab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be released on bail given the allegation of misappropriation of funds.
Whether further custody of the applicant is necessary as the money did not reach his personal account.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Kishor Shah
The State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
