Allowed
Manish Dinesh Thakore v. State of Maharashtra
Bombay HCABA/1461/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
SWAROOP Digitally signedby SWAROOP SHARAD SHARAD PHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.10.1821:35:26 +0530
aba 752 of 2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2022
… Harish Chand Jain and Ors. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1056 OF 2022 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2022
| Satish Vasant Ghatge and |
… | Intervener |
|---|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. | .. | Applicants |
| versus | ||
| State of Maharashtra | … | Respondent |
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1959 OF 2022 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2022
| Brendon James Sissing and |
… | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. | .. | Applicants |
| versus | ||
| State of Maharashtra | … | Respondent |
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1712 OF 2022
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2022
| Madan Gopal Bharadwaj … and |
Applicant |
|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. .. |
Applicants |
| versus | |
| State of Maharashtra … WITH |
Respondent |
| INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1439 O | F 2022 |
IN
SSP
aba 752 of 2022.doc
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2022
| Brendon James Sissing and |
… | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. | .. | Applicants |
| versus | ||
| State of Maharashtra | … | Respondent |
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3347 OF 2022
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1056 OF 2022
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2022
… Satish Vasant Ghatge Applicant and … Harish Chand Jain and Ors. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2022
… Harish Chand Jain and Ors. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1055 OF 2022
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2022
Satish Vasant Ghatge … Intervener and .. Harish Chand Jain and Ors. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1958 OF 2022 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2022
SSP 2/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
| Brendon James Sissing and |
… | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. | .. | Applicants |
| versus | ||
| State of Maharashtra | … | Respondent |
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1713 OF 2022 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2022
| Madan Gopal Bharadwaj and |
… | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. | .. | Applicants |
| versus | ||
| State of Maharashtra | … | Respondent |
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1438 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2022
| Brendon James Sissing and |
… | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. | .. | Applicants |
| versus | ||
| State of Maharashtra | … | Respondent |
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3346 OF 2022 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1055 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2022
| Satish Vasant Ghatge … and |
Applicant |
|---|---|
| Harish Chand Jain and Ors. … |
Applicants |
| versus | |
| State of Maharashtra … WITH |
Respondent |
| ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1 | 460 OF 2022 |
SSP 3/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
Manish Dinesh Thakore … Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1729 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1460 OF 2022
| Satish Vasant Ghatge and |
… | Applicant |
|---|---|---|
| Manish Dinesh Thakore | … | Applicant |
| versus | ||
| State of Maharashtra | … | Respondent |
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1727 OF 2022
IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1460 OF 2022
| Manish Dinesh Thakore … |
Applicant |
|---|---|
| versus | |
| State of Maharashtra … |
Respondent |
| WITH | |
| ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. | 1461 OF 2022 |
Manish Dinesh Thakore … Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1693 OF 2022 IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1461 OF 2022
| Satish Vasant Ghatge … and Manish Dinesh Thakore … versus |
Applicant Applicant |
|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra … WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1728 OF IN |
Respondent 2022 |
SSP 4/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1461 OF 2022
Manish Dinesh Thakore … Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Mr. Vijay Pande, Mr. Vijay Prakash, Ms. Pragya Sharma, Ms. Hasnain Kazi, Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, Ms. Shraddha Vavhal, Mr.Hafiz Kazi, Ms. Rhea Francis, Ms. Zeeshan Khan, for Applicants in ABA Nos.752 of 2022, 1460 of 2022 and 1461 of 2022
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Bhure, Mr. Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Mr. Vijay Pande, Mr. Vijay Prakash, Ms. Pragya Sharma, Ms. Hasnain Kazi, Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, Ms. Shraddha Vavhal, Mr.Hafiz Kazi, Ms. Rhea Francis, Ms. Zeeshan Khan, for Applicants in ABA 753 of 2022.
Mr. A.H.Ponda, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Sachin Pawar, for Applicant in IA 1056 of 2022 in ABA 752 of 2022.
Mr. Subhash Jha i/by Mr. Sachin Pawar for Applicant in IA 1055 of 2022 in ABA 753 of 2022.
Ms. P.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 4th JULY, 2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 17th OCTOBER, 2022
P.C.
Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’) for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.164 of
2022 and 165 of 2022 registered with Shahapuri Police Station, Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 409, 420 and 511 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
SSP 5/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
abovenumbered CRs, at the instance of Mr. Satish V. Ghatge, first informant/Applicant in Intervention Application Nos.1056, 1055, 1729 and 1693 of 2022 can be stated in brief as under :
2.1 Though both the CRs proceed on an identical premise, in C.R.No.164 of 2022 the allegations are two pronged. It may, therefore, be expedient to first note the allegations in C.R.No.164 of 2022.
2.2 Ghatge Group based at Kolhapur, operates a number of companies, primarily dealing in the business of automobile dealership and transportation. In 1972 a Company, namely, Kirloskar Ghatge Patil Auto Limited was formed. It was later on rechristened as KGP Auto Limited.
2.3 In the year 2011, Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., (DICV) appointed KGP Auto Limited as its dealer for Pune Region comprising of 17 districts vide letter of intent dated 2nd August, 2011. Under the terms of the letter of intent, KGP Auto Limited used to sell Bharat Benz trucks and buses and also provide after sales service. For the said business, KGP Auto Ltd. required two types of financial assistance. One, loan to purchase demo truck and bus. Second, financial assistance in the nature of spare parts, inventory funding, real estate funding, working capital funding and equipment funding, etc.
2.4 To meet the financial requirements, DICV made KGP Auto Ltd. to avail loan from Daimler Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. (DFSI). The latter had provided
SSP 6/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
financial assistance to purchase two Bharat Benz demo truck and one bus. KGP Aut Limited duly repaid the said loan under the respective loan agreements during the period 2013 to 2017. While providing aforesaid financial assistance, DFSI had made KGP Auto Ltd. to part with 15 signed cheques towards security and/or EMI. However, after repayment of the loan availed for purchase of three demo vehciles, DFSI, though obligated, did not return those cheques despite repeated request, nor the copies of the loan agreements were furnished to KGP Auto Ltd.
2.5 The first informant alleges, despite repayment of the entire loan for the purchase of three demo vehicles during the period 2015-19, DFSI presented those 15 cheques, delivered by way of security, for encashment on 15th November, 2021 with a view to have wrongful gain. Dates were put on the undated signed cheques without consent and knowledge of the drawer and thereby forgery was committed.
2.6 Eventually, those cheques aggregating to a sum of Rs.93,51,631/- were honoured upon presentment on 19th November, 2021. Thus, the Applicants – Harish Chand Jain (Accused No.1), Mr. Ingo Krueger (Accused No.2), Ms. Latha Venkatesh (Accused No.3), Mr. Brendon James Sissing (Accused No.4), directors of DFSI and Mr. Madan Gopal Bharadwaj (Accused No.6) the head of Credit Division of DFSI, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, committed offences of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust by misusing the custody of the signed cheques delivered by way of security and/or installments, despite the loan having been duly discharged.
SSP 7/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
2.7 The first informant further alleges that in respect of the second component of financial assistance like vehicle, spare parts, inventory, real estate and working capital funding, the terms of the loan were stipulated by and between DFSI and the first informant’s company by executing Terms Sheets and Agreements. After the repayment of the previous loan, fresh terms sheets and agreements were executed. While executing the terms sheets and agreements afresh, DFSI made the first informant’s Company to deliver 6-8 signed blank cheques by way of security. Once the said transaction was concluded and fresh terms sheets and agreements were executed, DFSI was enjoined to return the old cheques delivered by way of security. However, DFSI did not return those cheques despite repeated demands.
2.8 Under one of such transactions, while availing loan of Rs.38 Crores, DFSI had made the first informant’s company to deliver eight blank signed cheques bearing Nos.434076 to 434083, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. However, after the conclusion of the said transaction and repayment of the loan availed thereunder, DFSI did not return the abovenumbered cheques. On 7th December, 2021, the first informant’s Company received a demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thereupon, it transpired that DFSI misused the custody of signed blank cheques bearing Nos.434076 to 434083 delivered by way of security as back as in the year 2014 and presented those cheques for encashment by dishonestly filling in the amount of Rs.6,42,00,538 in cheque No.434076 and the amount of
SSP 8/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
Rs.6,42,00534 in rest of the 7 cheques and the date on which the cheques became payable as 15th November, 2021 without consent or knowledge of the first informant’s Company. Those cheques were dishonoured on presentment on 19th November, 2021.
2.9 The first informant thus realized that the Applicants/accused misused the custody of the signed blank cheques delivered by way of security as back as 2014 and by committing forgery presented those cheques for encashment. The first informant alleges the said exercise was actuated with malice. Hence, report against the Applicants/accused.
2.10 In C.R.No.165 of 2022, the first informant alleges that in the year 2015, DICV represented to Ghatge Group to sell cars manufactured by Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. (MBIIL). DICV, DFSI and MBIL are inter-related companies. Since KGP Auto Ltd. was already in the business relationship with Daimler Group for sell of trucks and buses, the first informant’s company was appointed a dealer to sell cars of MBIL. A dealership agreement came to be executed on 26th February, 2016. The first informant’s company, thus, availed loan from DFSI to purchase four demo cars. Towards security the first informant’s company – KGP Auto Ltd., was made to deliver four signed blank cheques bearing Nos.097258, 100236, 100274 and 100229. The first informant’s company duly repaid the entire loan amount availed for purchasing four demo cars.
SSP 9/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
demo cars, DFSI was under an obligation to return those four cheques. The first informant alleges despite repeated demands, Mr. Madan G. Bharadwaj, Head of the Credit Division of DFSI – Accused No.6, neither returned those cheques nor delivered copies of the agreements evidencing the transactions even after the transactions were concluded. To the shock and surprise of the first informant on 9th December, 2021, the first informant received notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, demanding payment of the amount covered by the above numbered cheques. The first informant realized that the Applicants, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, misused the custody of the abovenumbered signed blank cheques and filled in the amount of Rs.1,29,00,000/- in cheque No.097258, Rs.81,54,000/- in cheque No.100236, Rs.68,48,000/- in cheque No.100274 and Rs.50,00,000/- in cheque No.100229. The date ‘15/11/2021’ was also put on all the cheques fraudulently. Those cheques were dishonoured on 19th November, 2021.
2.12 Thus by committing forgery the Applicants presented the abovenumbered cheques for encashment despite underlying transactions for the security of which those cheques were delivered, having been concluded by repayment of the loan amount. Thus the report.
SSP 10/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
have approached this Court.
KGP Auto Limited and GMPL continued to commit default in payment of the outstanding amount despite repeated assurances. Thus, loan recall notices were
SSP 11/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
addressed on 24th August, 2021 and a Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015 (IBC, 2015) was lodged on 20th October, 2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process against KGP Auto Limited and Ghatge Motors. Under the terms of the contract, DFSI was entitled to enforce the security in case of cross default. Therefore, according to the Applicants, no case of cheating or forgery is made out.
SSP 12/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
on record by the prosecution, first informant and the Applicants. I have also perused the investigation papers tendered by the learned APP.
SSP 13/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
V/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and Ors. 1, Sharon Michael and Ors. V/s. State
of Tamil Nadu and Anr. 2, Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar 3 and Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah V/s. State of Gujarat and Anr. 4. By way of demurer, Mr. Gupta would urge that there is no material to indicate that at the inception of the transaction, the intention of the accused, or for that matter Daimler group of companies, was dishonest. Thus, no offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be said to have been made out. At best, it would be a case of breach of contract, which is quite distinct from an offence of cheating. To lend support to this submission, Mr. Gupta placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Anr. 5
1 (1999) 8 SCC 468
2 (2009) 3 SCC 375
3 (2019) 4 SCC 197
4 (2019) 9 SCC 148 5
SSP 14/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
obligations incurred by the informant’s companies and the first informant under the previous contracts. The provision of ‘cross default’ under Clause 29 of Wholesale Master Loan Agreement, according to Mr. Kadam, authorizes the lender to appropriate any payment made by the borrower under the said agreement towards payment due from the borrower and/or guarantor and/or company etc., and such appropriation binds the borrower.
6 (2009) 1 SCC 706
SSP 15/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
put signatures on the agreements and never delivered copy of those agreements to the informant’s companies despite demands.
SSP 16/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
avail as the collateral meant the present and future property and rights of the borrower and not the cheques which were delivered in the year 2014. Mr. Ponda would also urge that the recourse to cross default clause 22.12, is also of no assistance to the Applicants as the mechanism for the same is provided under Clause 29 for enforcement of payments under the said agreement and not for past transactions.
7 2012 (9) SCC 235
8 2019(9) SCC 24
9 1997(7) SCC 187
10 (2011) 1 SCC 74
11 (1996) 4 SCC 622
12 (2017) 6 SCC 263
SSP
aba 752 of 2022.doc
ought to ignore the corporate character and look at the reality behind the corporate veil.
13 2011(2) JCC 1274
14 2021 SCC Online SC 1002
15 (1999) 3 SCC 259
SSP 18/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not.”.
cover the liability incurred by the informant’s companies under the various
16 (2013) 7 SCC 466
SSP 19/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
agreements evidencing the loan and financial assistance provided by DFSI. The delivery of the subject cheques is not a matter of contest. The controversy between the parties, to some extent, revolves around the period during which the subject cheques were delivered. In the demand notice, DFSI claimed that the cheques were issued in the month of November, 2021. In contrast, there is material to show that the subject cheques were delivered at an anterior point of time. Thus, the Applicants made an endeavour to assert that under the terms of the Wholesale Master Loan Agreement, DFSI was entitled to use the subject cheques either by way of collateral or under cross default clause.
SSP 20/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
position as under :
“33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.
The aforesaid judgment in the case of Bir Singh (supra) , was followed by the
SSP 21/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce V/s. Prabodh Kumar Tewari17 . After extracting the observations in paragraphs 33, 34 and 36 (extracted above), the Supreme Court expounded the legal position as under :
15.The above view was recently reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kalamani Tex V. P. Balasubramanian 18
16.A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. The presumption arises under Section 139.
12. Section 139 of the Act mandates that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it, in discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt, or liability. The expression ‘unless the contrary is proved’ indicates that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable. Terming this as an example of a “reverse onus clause” the three Judge Bench of this Court in Rangappa held that in determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the test of proportionality must guide the determination. The standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities. This Court held thus :
“28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of “preponderance of
17 2022 SCC Online SC 1089
18 (2021) 5 SCC 283
19 (2020) 15 SCC 348
20 (2010) 11 SCC 441
22/31
SSP
aba 752 of 2022.doc
probabilities.” Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own.”
SSP 23/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
but for the Forbearance Agreement, DFSI could have exercised its rights and remedies with respect to such defaults. It further provided that existing rights of DFSI would continue to operate and be enforceable. The said Forbearance Agreement came to be further extended by ‘Amendment 1’ dated 30th December, 2019 and stood extended till 31st March, 2020.
“Collateral shall mean the following present and future property and rights of the Borrower :
a. All Products, including without limitation, all new and used motor vehicle, and further including without limitation, all Products on order, but not yet delivered to the Borrower, and all consigned Products;
SSP 24/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
b. All fittings and fixtures, including without limitation, all furniture, fixtures, machinery, tools, and all additions, substitutions, replacements, accessories, attachments and accessions;
c. All accounts and the monies lying therein from time to time, including but not limited to the New Operating Account and the Operating Account, contract rights, instruments, documents, promissory notes and supporting obligations;
……….”
reads as under :
“10.5 The Borrower agrees, declares and confirms that, notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other Applicable Law, or any terms and conditions to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the Lender may, at its absolute discretion, appropriate any payments made by the Borrower under this Agreement/any amounts realized by the Lender by enforcement of the Collateral, towards the dues payable by the Borrower to the Lender under the Agreement and/or other agreements entered into between the Borrower and the Lender and in any manner whatsoever.”
relevant part of which read thus :
“On the happening of any of the Events of Default, the Lender may, by a notice in writing to the Borrower :
(i) terminate the Loan and/or call upon the Borrower to pay all the dues in respect of the Loan;
(ii) suspend further access/drawals by the Borrower to the use of the unused portion of the Overall limits. The access of the Borrower to the Overall Limits shall continue to be suspended until the Lender has notified the Borrower of any restoration;
SSP 25/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
(iii) declare the security created, if any, in terms of the Transaction Documents (including without limitation the security interest created over the collateral) to be enforceable, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Transaction Documents the Lender or such other person in favour of whom such security or any part thereof is created shall have, inter alia, the following rights namely :
a. to enter upon and take possession of the assets comprised within the security, if any; and/or
b. to transfer the assets comprised within the security created, if any by way of lease, leave and license, sale or otherwise;
30. Clause 29 provides for Cross Default and Set Off, as under :
“29.1 The Borrower agrees and confirms that the Lender may at its absolute discretion appropriate any payments made by the Borrower under the Agreement towards payment due from the Borrower and/or the Guarantor and/or company promoted by the Borrower and/or any Person being part of the Affiliates under another agreement or transaction executed by the Borrower and/or the Guarantor and/or any company promoted by the Borrower and/or any person being part of the Affiliates with the Lender Group Companies and such appropriation shall be final and binding upon the Borrower who shall continue to remain indebted to the Lender for payment of dues under this Agreement in respect of which such sums of money were so paid but were appropriated towards another agreement or transaction entered into by the Borrower and/or the Guarantor and/or any company promoted by the Borrower and/or any person being part of the Affiliates.
29.2 In addition, notwithstanding the payment of any part of the Overall Limit along with Applicable interest Rate, the Borrower hereby expressly gives the Lender the power to appropriate any and all security interest (and any guarantees) created in favour of the Lender in terms of this Agreement and appropriate the same towards satisfaction of amounts due to the Lender Group Companies on account of another agreement or transaction
26/31
SSP
aba 752 of 2022.doc
entered into by the Borrower and/or the Guarantor and/or any company promoted by the Borrower and/or any Person being part of the Affiliates or any Indebtedness of eh Borrower and/or any Person being part of the Affiliates.”
SSP 27/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
Applicants (Exhibit S – page 479) contains the signature of one authorized signatory of DFSI. Therefore, the Applicants forged the said document as well.
SSP 28/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
the Applicants does not seem warranted at this length of time. In any event, the concern of investigating agency can be taken are of by directing the Applicants to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer as and when directed. This would also address the issue of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as expounded by the Supreme court in para No.92.8 of the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.21 The Applicants also appear to have roots in society.
ORDER
(i) The Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.752 of 2022, 753 of 2022,
21 (2020) 5 SCC 1
SSP 29/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
1460 of 2022 and 1461 of 2022 stand allowed.
(ii) In the event of the arrest of the Applicants – Harish Chand Jain, Ingo Krueger, Latha Venkatesh, Brendon James Sissing, Anita Ganesan Iyer, Madan Gopal Bharadwaj and Manish Dinesh Thakore in C.R.Nos.164 of 2022 and 165 of 2022 registered with Shahapuri Police Station, Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 409, 420 and 511 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, they be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each and one or two sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The Applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer with 7 days prior notice.
(iv) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The Applicants shall furnish their permanent residential address and contact details to the Investigation Officer.
(v) The Applicants shall not leave the country without three days prior intimation to the Investigating Officer clearly indicating the date of leaving the country and the date of return and contact details and the phone number on which the Applicants can be contacted by the Investigating Officer, while they are abroad.
SSP 30/31
aba 752 of 2022.doc
(vi) In view of the disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Applications, All
Interim Applications stand disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
31/31
SSP
4 issues framed by the court
Whether the filling in of contents of signed blank cheques by a third party constitutes cheating and forgery under IPC.
Whether the authority of the lender to encash signed blank cheques depends on the interpretation of the loan agreement and is a matter for trial.
Whether bail should be granted in a case involving commercial disputes and forgery allegations ante-dating the indictment.
Whether the Applicants, given the commercial nature of the transaction and the ongoing mediation, require custodial interrogation at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Kumar v. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd.Referred¶115
Sunil Kumar V/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and Ors.
Sharon Michael v. StateReferred¶118
Sharon Michael and Ors. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Bir Singh v. Mukesh KumarApplied¶118
Bir Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of GujaratReferred¶118
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah V/s. State of Gujarat and Anr.
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of BiharReferred¶119
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Anr.
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Rajiv DubeyReferred¶128
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and anr. V/s. Rajiv Dubey
Maruti N. Navle v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶139
Maruti N. Navle V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶139
P. Chidambaram V/s. Directorate of Enforcement
State (CBI) v. Anil SharmaReferred¶139
State (CBI) V/s. Anil Sharma
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.Referred¶139
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. V/s. Motorola Incorporated and Ors.
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.Referred¶139
Delhi Development Authority V/s. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr.
State of Karnataka v. J. JayalalithaReferred¶139
State of Karnataka V/s. J. Jayalalitha and Ors.
Citi Bank v. NCT of DelhiReferred¶150
Citi Bank, N.A. V/s. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Sripati Singh v. State of JharkhandReferred¶150
Sripati Singh V/s. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of DelhiReferred¶150
Rajesh Bajaj V/s. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBIReferred¶157
Nimmagadda Prasad V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation
9 provisions across 3 enactments
Harish Chand Jain and Ors.
State of Maharashtra
N.J. Jamadar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court