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 an anticipatory bail application filed by Rajan Pujari against arrest under sections 417 and 420 of the IPC. The court confirmed an interim order, released the applicant on bail with a bond and sureties, and directed attendance as called for the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; interim order confirmed; applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties in like amount.

Rajan Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | 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 … Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

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

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

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”).

¶10

The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was lodged on 13^th 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,

¶11

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

1 of 3

SLJ

1-Aba-1801-2019.doc

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

¶16

The applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 19^th 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Hence, I pass the following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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

2 of 3

SLJ

1-Aba-1801-2019.doc

more sureties in the like amount;

¶27

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

¶28

(v) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

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

Lindwall Joseph Rodrigues Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

Pravej Imam Ali Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra