High Court allowed anticipatory bail application regarding apprehended arrest for cheating. Court held lack of direct transaction and evidence of applicant receiving funds warranted protection despite husband's prior offences.
Applicant released on bail on Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
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.
aba9.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2022
Komal W/o Vishwajeet Kasar
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
...RESPONDENT
... Mr.Rahul R. Karpe Advocate for Applicant. Mr.V.M. Kagne, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 25th FEBRUARY 2022 DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 4th APRIL 2022
ORDER :
aba9.22
2
aba9.22
3
that how the transactions had taken place. Husband of the applicant is a notorious person. He has one offence registered against him in Shrigonda Police Station and also in Nagar Taluka Police Station, Kotwali Police Station, Supa Police Station. In all 18 offences have been registered against the husband of the applicant including offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Even amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been credited by the informant in the account of one Rupchand Laxman Kasar, who is the relative of the applicant. Applicant, her husband and coaccused have time and again taken amounts from various persons under some or the other pretext, especially by saying that they should invest in the business and they would receive good return. Applicant has been cheated for an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- which was his hard earned amount and since this is economic offence, no leniency be shown.
aba9.22
4
aba9.22
5
RTGS and accordingly the complainant had made RTGS but it could not be collected by the Investigating Officer as to whether that amount was received by Nagebaba Patsanstha or not. It is also the statement in the communication to learned APP by the Investigating Officer that the said amount has been again credited to the bank account of the informant on 15th July 2018. That means, the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was never received by the applicant. It is not known, which documents the informant has seen before giving amount to the applicant’s husband or any other person whose name he had taken and as to whether there is any contract between the husband of the applicant and the Airport Authorities. When the informant has retired from Panchayat Samitee, Parner, he would have had the idea as to how these contracts generated and what is the procedure that is adopted. There would definitely be a tender and only after acceptance of the same, the contract could be in favour of the person who takes the contract. If the informant was negligent in not considering all these documents and just going on accepting whatever has been represented to him to be true without cross checking it, then whether that amounts to offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is a question. There would be every sympathy to such person
aba9.22
6
whose hard earned amount is taken away by such persons who are there to cheat, but we cannot forget the fact that people are also required to be on guard before entering into any kind of transaction with anybody. There appears to be no direct transaction between the applicant and the informant. There is no such document collected up till now to show that she had received the amount though her husband might have received and therefore, the applicant deserves to be protected. Hence, following order is passed:-
O R D E R
i) Application stands allowed.
ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant – Komal W/o Vishwajeet Kasar in connection with Crime No.69 of 2021 registered with Supa Police Station, Taluka-Parner, DistrictAhmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, she be released on bail on PR Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each.
aba9.22
7
iii) Applicant shall remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when called, for which Investigating Officer to give notice to applicant 48 hours in advance.
iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner.
v) Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI , J. ]
asb/APR22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can require protection from arrest for an anticipatory bail applicant under Section 420 IPC who is not directly involved in financial transactions alleged against her husband.
Whether the mere involvement of the applicant's husband in similar offences allows inferencing of her common intention.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Komal W/o Vishwajeet Kasar
The State of Maharashtra
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
