Allowed

Dayashankar Bagwatiprasad Dubey v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2021BA/240/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order grants bail to a 75-year-old senior citizen applicant detained for nearly two years for alleged cheating offenses. The court held that investigation was complete, the trial had not commenced, and further detention was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Bail Application allowed; applicant released on bail with a bond of Rs. 25,000 and permission for provisional cash bail.

Dayashankar Bagwatiprasad Dubey Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

59- BA-240-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 240 OF 2021

¶4

Dayashankar Bagwatiprasad Dubey
Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

� Applicant

¶7

� Respondent

¶8

Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. A. S. Pandey, Advocate for the Intervenor.
Mr. Vedpathak (API) Goregaon Police Station, Present.

¶9

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 23rd MARCH, 2021

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

Digitally signed by RajeP. RajeP. AherDate: Aher 2021.03.25 21:22:25 +0530

¶12

1.This is an application for bail in C.R. No. 56 of 2020
registered with Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai for offences under
Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 406, 465, 467, 120-B r/w Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). The FIR was registered on 25th
January, 2019. The applicant was arrested on 24th May, 2019.

¶13

2.The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of
two Galas situated at Jogeshwari (W) which are let out on rental
basis. He knows Santosh Yadav and since last 15 years he was acting
as an agent. On 8th April, 2018, Santosh Yadav met the complainant
and told him that one shop is available for sale and the owner of the
shop is Julai Munshi (applicant). On 9th April, 2018 Santosh Yadav

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

Sajakali Jamadar

¶16

59- BA-240-2021.doc

¶17

took the complainant to shop No.7, at Brahmdin’s Chawl, Valbhat
Road, Goregaon (East). Suresh Yadav was introduced to him. He is
son of Julai Yadav. Suresh Yadav and Santosh Yadav showed him the
property at shop No.7 which was like by the complainant. It was
represented that the documents of property are with Julai Munshi
Yadav and he is the resident of Uttar Pradesh. On 12th April, 2018,
Suresh Yadav and Santosh Yadav brought as an aged person before
the complainant and introduced him as Julai Munshi Yadav. The
complainant had a discussion with him and it was decided that shop
would be sold for an amount of Rs.17 Lakhs. Thereafter, the
complainant parted the amount of Rs.17 Lakhs. Subsequently, false
documents were prepared. It was revealed that the accused have
cheated the complainant. The applicant was not owner of the shop
premises.

¶18

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is in custody from 24th May, 2019. Investigation is
completed and the charge-sheet is filed. The trial has not
commenced. The applicant is senior citizen aged about 75 years.

¶19

4.Learned APP submitted that the applicant has played
active role in the transaction. He represented himself as owner of the
premises which was to be sold to the complainant. Learned APP

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

Sajakali Jamadar

¶22

59- BA-240-2021.doc

¶23

pointed out the statement of witnesses. More particularly, statement
of Ramnath Dubey. Specific overt act has been attributed to the
applicant. Loss of Rs. 17 Lakhs was caused to the complainant.

¶24

5.Learned counsel for the intervenor made similar
submissions. It is submitted that it was pre-planned act committed by
the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant. He was
made to part with an amount of Rs 17 Lakhs. Only on the ground
that the applicant is senior citizen, bail should not be granted to the
him.

¶25

6.The applicant is senior citizen aged 75 years. He is in
custody almost for a period of about 2 years. Investigation is
completed and the charge-sheet is filed. The offences are triable by
the Magistrate. Considering the factual aspects of the case, further
detention of the applicant is not necessary. Case for grant of bail is
made out.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) Criminal Bail Application No. 240 of 2021 is allowed;

¶28

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No. 56 of 2020 registered with Goregaon
Police Station, Mumbai on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii)The applicant shall report concerned Police Station

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

Sajakali Jamadar

¶31

59- BA-240-2021.doc

¶32

once in three months on the first Saturday of the month
between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 noon till further order;

¶33

(iv)The applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash
bail security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of eight
weeks in lieu of surety;

¶34

(v) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶36

4 of 4

¶37

Sajakali Jamadar

Dayashankar Bagwatiprasad Dubey v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayashankar Bagwatiprasad Dubey 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

Saranya Manikandan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irvin Jivan Vohra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Prabhakar Golhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Ramabhai Bhandari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Farhan Raza Rafiullah Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amira Sohrab Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra