In a bail application under C.R.No.1099 of 2020 for alleged misappropriation of gold under Section 406 IPC, the court granted bail pending trial, noting the maximum sentence is three years and no impediments existed to release.
Released on bail with an Rs. 50,000 bond and sureties.
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.
15-ba-431-21.odt
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 431 OF 2021
Anand Suresh Gundecha
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.... Respondent
Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b. Aashish Satpute for Applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 05th MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
police station, Pune, under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
1 of 7
Gokhale
: 2 : 15-ba-431-21.odt
The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) was lodged by the informant Debu Majumdar. He has stated that, he has a shop and a small workshop for making gold ornaments and selling them at Budhwar Peth, Pune. The applicant had business relations with the informant since 2017. It is alleged that the applicant used to take gold temple jewellery from the informant and he used to sell them to other businessmen for selling. In the process, the applicant used to earn commission. These business relations were continued smoothly for about two years. Therefore, the informant trusted him. It is his case that, since 2019 upto 20/09/2020 on various occasions the informant had given him gold. In the month of March, since the lockdown was imposed the applicant went back to his hometown at Kolhapur. At that time, the applicant had 5Kg. 816gm. of gold with him which was taken from the informant. The informant used to demand that gold, but the applicant used to give some excuses mainly regarding spread of pandemic. Even after March, 2020 there were instances in June and August when the applicant had taken some gold from the informant. On the last occasion, he took gold from the informant
2 of 7
: 3 : 15-ba-431-21.odt
on 20/9/2020. It is the informant’s case that the applicant had 5Kg. 899gm. gold which was taken from the informant. The informant was demanding back his gold, but finally on 05/10/2020 the applicant telephonically called the informant and told him that he was in a bad financial state and he was unable to return his gold. The informant was convinced that the gold was misappropriated. It was worth Rs.2,20,17,440/- and, therefore, this F.I.R. was lodged.
3 of 7
: 4 : 15-ba-431-21.odt
business of earning commission by selling that gold to others came to a standstill and, therefore, he was not in a position to either return that gold or return the amount. He had forwarded gold to his various other customers. He submitted that the receipts which are tendered before the police, which are forming part of the charge-sheet do not really show the actual weight of the gold as what was mentioned in the F.I.R. It was much lesser. He submitted that, during the investigation gold worth Rs.70 lakhs was already recovered. This also shows that, beyond that the recovery of gold was not possible because the applicant did not have it. There was no other property, recovered by the police, connecting the applicant with the present offence. Shri. Nikam submitted that the maximum punishment provided for the offence under section 406 of the IPC is three years and the applicant is already in custody since October, 2020.
4 of 7
: 5 : 15-ba-431-21.odt
intended to return that gold and it was actually misappropriated.
5 of 7
: 6 : 15-ba-431-21.odt
shows that he had given some gold to traders for further transactions. 1Kg of gold, of course, is found with his brother in law, however, there is no real explanation as to why that 1Kg. of gold was found with the brother in law of the applicant and why the applicant had not returned it to the first informant. In any case, there is some substance in the submission of Shri. Nikam that, because of lockdown the applicant’s business had come to a standstill and the gold could not be sold further to prospective purchasers at market price. As of today, the informant’s case cannot be doubted. Some gold was taken by the applicant and it was not returned and money was also not given, but there are indications that the applicant was trying to sell that gold to various traders.
6 of 7
: 7 : 15-ba-431-21.odt
is no impediment in granting bail to the applicant, considering all the above factors.
ORDER
(i) In connection with C.R.No.1099 of 2020 registered with Faraskhana police station, Pune, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused is entitled to bail in an offence under Section 406 of the IPC despite the allegation of misappropriation of gold.
Whether the recovery of gold from relatives and the standstill of business due to lockdown defeats the bail application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anand Suresh Gundecha
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
