Dismissed

Parnita W/O. Deepak Puranik v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jan 2021ABA/265/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Parnita Puranik in a chit fund racket case. Despite claims of victimhood, the court noted she was an active accomplice alleged to have lured the informant and remained evasive when approached.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 CrPC is rejected, and the court does not grant any bail or protection pending investigation.

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No. 09/2020 registered with Satara Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

2.F.I.R. No. 09/2020 was lodged on 07.01.2020. It is alleged in the F.I.R. inter alia that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention, deceived the informant by promising handsome returns and made him to contribute to the chit fund but failed to honour the promise. It was found that several other persons were also similarly duped. When the informant tried to approach the main accused Bhagirath Bajaj his office was closed. When he approached the present applicant she was evasive. Realizing that he has been duped like many others he lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of which offence is registered as Crime No. 09/2020 with Satara Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes

3.The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. Rather she is also a victim. Like the informant even she had contributed to the fund. She herself has not received any money from the informant. It is the accused No. 1 and 2 who are the main culprits who had floated the scheme and have duped her. She is ready to cooperate the Investigating Officer and being a woman may be protected.

5.I have carefully perused the F.I.R. and the papers. At the out set it is necessary to emphasize that in the F.I.R. itself it has been alleged that along with other accused even the applicant had promised the informant of high returns and had lured him in depositing money in the scheme being floated.

6.More importantly, the F.I.R. also reads that when the informant had been to the office of the main accused and learnt about it having been closed he had approached the applicant but she was evasive. Since it is an offence involving a racket wherein several persons have been duped of their hard earned money, when there are specific allegations about involvement of the applicant as a member of the cartel and the investigation is still in progress, this is not a fit case where any relief can be granted to the applicant.

Parnita W/O. Deepak Puranik v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parnita W/O. Deepak Puranik 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

Sanjay Vishram Baisane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vakil Sheshrao Rathod and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gayas Shabbir Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagarrao Raosaheb Chothe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh S/O. Ramchandra Sadegaonkar Vs Ajay S/O. Manikrao Kamble and Anr.