Allowed

Rajan Pujari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Aug 2021ABA/1801/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail for the applicant who faced arrest for cheating and dishonoured cheque linked to a commercial dispute. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and confirmed the interim protection order, directing release on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed, interim order confirmed, release on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties.

Rajan Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1-Aba-1801-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1801 OF 2019

¶4

Rajan Pujari

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

None for the Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 7th AUGUST, 2021.

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

1.The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No.427 of
2019 registered with Jail Road Police Station, Solapur for offence
under Sections 417 & 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

¶12

2.The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was
lodged on 13th July, 2019. It is the case of the complainant that he
was acquainted with the applicant. Amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was
parted to the applicant for importing machinery of power looms
from foreign country. The promise was not fulfilled. Cheque of
Rs.5 Lakhs was given to the complainant. The cheque was
dishonoured when it was deposited by the complainant. Thereafter,

¶13

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2021.08.07 17:39:09 +0530

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

SLJ

¶16

1-Aba-1801-2019.doc

¶17

the complainant had initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶18

3.The applicant was granted interim protection vide
order dated 19th August, 2019. The applicant has contended that
the complainant had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act. There is no evidence to establish that
the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was given as security in respect of
friendly loan. The applicant has amended this application and
placed on record the documents relating to the proceedings under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶19

4.Considering the nature of dispute, custodial
interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Interim order dated
19th August, 2019 can be confirmed.

¶20

5.Hence, I pass the following order:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.1801 of 2019 is
allowed;

¶23

(ii)Interim order dated 19th August, 2019 is confirmed.

¶24

(iii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection
with in C.R. No.427 of 2019 registered with Jail Road Police
Station, Solapur, the applicant be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

SLJ

¶27

1-Aba-1801-2019.doc

¶28

more sureties in the like amount;

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall attend the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶30

(v) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

SLJ

Rajan Pujari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Pujari 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

Vinod R Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samadhan Pralhad Tekale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nagesh Sadashiv Bhandari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajan Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lindwall Joseph Rodrigues Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Mohasim Abdul Shukur Ansari Vs Sr. Police Inspector and Anr.