Allowed

Jignesh Prakash Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Dec 2021ABA/212/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application sought pre-arrest bail for the applicant, a receiver of goods in a cheating FIR. The High Court, noting the applicant's cooperation after interim directions and the filing of the chargesheet, allowed the bail application and granted protection against arrest upon furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Protection against arrest by furnishing a police bond of Rs.50,000/- with sureties and complying with specified conditions regarding residence and cooperation.

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

10.aba.212-20.doc

¶2

PMB

¶3

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2021.12.04 16:31:42 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.212 OF 2020

¶6

Jignesh Prakash Shah .. Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

Ms. Anjali Patil for the applicant. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2021

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The FIR is registered under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code at B.K.C. Police Station vide C.R. No.156 of 2018. It is alleged that one Herin Atul Sanghvi, who was introduced to the complainant by Herin’s Uncle, gained the trust and confdence of the complainant. The complainant was in the business of dealing in diamonds. The complainant handed over diamonds to Herin on various occasions for selling it to the prospective buyers on a commission basis. Initially, Herin, who is the accused No.1, paid to the complainant the monies received from the sale of the diamonds. Later on from January 2017 onwards, though Herin

¶13

1/5

¶14

10.aba.212-20.doc

¶15

was in receipt of the diamonds from the complainant, Herin failed to pay a sum of Rs.1,97,83,975/-, though the diamonds were sold by Herin. The complaint therefore of cheating.

¶16

Herin is the main accused. The applicant is the receiver of the stolen property. Herin came to be arrested. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Herin sold the diamonds to four persons which included the applicant as well. The applicant was a recipient of diamonds worth Rs.25 lakhs. It is alleged that the cost of the diamonds was much more but Herin sold it to the present applicant at a reduced price.

¶17

Herin has since been released on bail by the Sessions Court. My attention is invited to the order passed by the Sessions Court in the application for pre-arrest bail fled by the four accused which included the applicant against all of whom the allegation of receiving the stolen property was made. It appears that despite directions of the Sessions Court, the applicant failed to report to the Investigating Ofcer and did not co-operate with the investigation. So far as the other three accused are concerned, they reported to the Investigating Ofcer as directed by the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the co-accused having co-operated with the investigation, the custodial interrogation in respect of other three accused, who

¶18

2/5

¶19

10.aba.212-20.doc

¶20

are similar situate like the applicant is not required. However, as the applicant did not report to the Investigating Ofcer, his application for pre-arrest bail was refused.

¶21

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant on 27.01.2020 recorded the undertaking of the applicant that he would attend the Police Station on 29^th , 30^th and 31^st January, 2020 and thereafter as and when called. The applicant further undertook to co-operate with the investigation.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant reported to the Police Station as directed and cooperated with the investigation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant failed to abide by the order passed by this Court.

¶23

It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that the chargesheet has been fled even against the present applicant.

¶24

Learned APP pleads no instructions. However, a categoric statement is made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the chargesheet No.535 of 2020 is fled with the 71^st Court, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra against the present applicant.

¶25

3/5

¶26

10.aba.212-20.doc

¶27

Considering that the Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail to similar situate applicants and that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicant reported to the Investigating Ofcer and co-operated with the investigation, now that even the chargesheet has been fled, I see no reason to deprive the applicant relief of a pre-arrest bail as the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

¶28

Moreover, the applicant is granted interim protection by this Court since 27.01.2020.

¶29

Hence, the following order :-

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in respect of C. R. No.156 of 2018 registered with B.K.C. Police Station, he shall be released on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like sum.

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall furnish the particulars of his place of residence and contact details to the Investigating Ofcer of the Police Station concerned within seven days from today.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶34

(iv) Needless to mention that in the event any further co-operation of the applicant is required, the applicant to co-operate with the Investigating Ofcer.

¶35

4/5

¶36

10.aba.212-20.doc

¶37

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of.

¶38

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶39

5/5

Jignesh Prakash Shah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jignesh Prakash Shah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Advent India Pe Advisors Private Limited Vs the Union of India through Secretary and Anr.

Avik Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Union of India (through the Secretary) and 5 Others

Anu Product Ltd. Vs Union of India (through the Secretary) Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Amit Bholanath Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Almaa Aala Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrirang Pandurang Kank Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.