Anticipatory bail application rejected by Single Judge in High Court of Bombay, Cr. A.J., as accused involved in serious forgery and misappropriation, requiring custodial interrogation to determine modus operandi and fake account details under IPC sections 420 and 34.
No case for anticipatory bail made out; application rejected.
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.
45-aba-377-21.odt
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 377 OF 2021
Raj Gokul Kamble.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for Applicant.
Mrs. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State/Respondent.
Mr. A. G. Patil, PHC 856, Ispurli Police Station, Kolhapur, present.
CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 11th FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C. :
1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No. 172 of 2020 registered with Ispurli Police Station,
Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur, on 31/12/2020, under section 420
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
2.Heard Shri. Shrishail Sakhare, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mrs. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.
3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is
1 of 4
Gokhale
: 2 : 45-aba-377-21.odt
lodged by one Rajendra Hotkar, on 31/12/2020. He has stated in
his F.I.R. that, he was in need of finances for his business. He came
in contact with one Subhash Rohidas for that purpose through
some advertisement. He represented to the first informant that, if
the informant paid some processing fees to the said person, he
would procure loan from different banks. The informant paid him
money from time to time. But nothing came out of such payment.
In the meantime, he got acquainted with the present applicant
through that Subhash. The F.I.R. mentions that the applicant in
turn represented to the first informant that Subhash Rohidas
would not do his work, instead, the informant could get loan
through the present applicant and for that purpose some amount
would required to be paid. It is the allegation in the F.I.R. that, on
directions of the applicant the informant transferred Rs.90,000/-
in the account of Ashwini Parashe. Her account was held in
Suryodaya bank and Smile Finance. There are allegations that the
informant paid Rs.90,000/- in cash. Thus, the applicant had taken
Rs.1,80,000/- from the informant. The other accused Subhash
Rohidas had taken Rs.36000/-. Nothing was done. No loan was
2 of 4
: 3 : 45-aba-377-21.odt
sanctioned in the name of applicant and the money was
misappropriated. The applicant refused to repay the money. On
these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged.
4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, as far
as payment of Rs.90,000/- to the applicant is concerned, there is
no proof of the same. It was allegedly, a cash transaction and
without proof this is not believable. He submitted that, balance
amount of Rs.90000/- he was willing to deposit in the court.
5.Learned APP vehemently opposed this application. She
submitted that, even the account held in the name of aforesaid
Ashwini was a fake account. For that purpose her documents were
used and forged documents were created to open such account.
Money was transferred into that account and thereafter it was
siphoned off. The statement of Ashwini Parashe to that effect is
already recorded. Learned APP also relied on the account details,
allegedly, held in the name of Ashwini Parashe.
6.I have considered these submissions. The offence is
serious. It is not the question of repayment of Rs.90,000/- or
Rs.1,80,000/-, more serious issue is about creation of forged
3 of 4
: 4 : 45-aba-377-21.odt
documents and opening a fake account in the name of Ashwini
Parashe which was used by the present applicant for depositing
money given by the informant through NEFT transfer. As per F.I.R.
the money given by the first informant is lost. It is
misappropriated. The offence is made out. Custodial interrogation
of the applicant is necessary to find out modus operandi and to
find out details of opening of fake account in the name of Ashwini
Parashe. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.
7.The application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant accused of cheating and forgery in connection with C.R.No. 172 of 2020.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Gokul Kamble
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court