Dismissed

Roshan Garry Bhinder v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Oct 2021ABA/435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected a pre-arrest bail application. The applicant claimed false implication in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case arising from a web series partnership. The court rejected bail as the applicant failed to produce vouchers justifying expenses during interim protection, leaving an inference of misappropriation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Roshan Garry Bhinder Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

ABA-435-2021.doc

¶2

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶3

BDP-SPS-TAC

¶4

Digitally signed byBHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2021.10.28 10:51:19 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 435 OF 2021

¶6

….Applicant.

¶7

ROSHAN GARRY BHINDER

¶8

V/s

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA…..Respondent

¶10

Mr. Satyaram R. Gaud for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr. Ashok Mishra a/w Viral Bhanushali i/b Solicis Lex for the
Intervener

¶12

Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent/State.
API Vivek Khawale, Versova Police Station, present.

¶13

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶14

DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2021

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

1] Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in C.R. No.26 of 2021 registered with Versova Police Station for the offence punishable under

¶17

section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

2] Prosecution case is, present Applicant alongwith other two co-

¶19

producers decided to develop Web Series which was to be shown
through the Channel and profit generated out of the same was to be
shared in accordance with memorandum of co-producer agreement
dated 21/6/2019. Applicant in the capacity of producer having

¶20

1/3

¶21

ABA-435-2021.doc

¶22

50% share, received an amount of Rs 37 lakhs by cheque from the
complainant who was having 25% share each, which is alleged to have
mismanaged. As such, offence in question.

¶23

3]Contentions are, relationship between the parties is fiduciary and
based on the terms of agreement/memorandum dated 21st June,
2019. According to him, if business has suffered any losses, Applicant
ought not to have been blamed for the same and that being so,
Applicant is falsely implicated in the crime. It is further claimed that
due to pandemic, only limited episodes of Web Series could be
produced which has generated hardly any revenue and that being so
partnership has suffered losses. It is also claimed that the Applicant is
in possession of vouchers to justify the expenses.

¶24

4]While countering the aforesaid submissions, learned APP submits

¶25

that the Applicant is prima facie involved in the crime can be inferred,
as an amount of Rs 10 lakhs is withdrawn from the joint account by

¶26

the Applicant through ATM and other amount of Rs 4 lakhs was
diverted for which there is no reasonable justification. It is further
claimed that there are statements of witnesses which show that

¶27

2/3

¶28

ABA-435-2021.doc

¶29

Applicant has not paid to the crew.

¶30

5]In the aforesaid backdrop, when confronted, there is no material
made available by the Applicant while enjoying interim protection
justifying the expenses either to this Court or to Investigating Officer.
As such, the amount which was handedover to the Applicant in trust
appears to have been misappropriated. Necessary ingredients of
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC can be inferred against the Applicant.
Though it is claimed by the Applicant that he is in possession of
vouchers, no such vouchers are produced before the Investigating
Officer or before this Court. Application therefore deserves to be
rejected and same is accordingly rejected.

¶31

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶32

3/3

Roshan Garry Bhinder v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Roshan Garry Bhinder v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Khandu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Indira Vitthal Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Murtuza Khalil Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranaram Khumaram Purohit Alias Naresh Alias Ranvir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayuresh Sitaram Kadam and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bimlesh Santaram Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra