Dismissed

Prakash Ganpat Sankapal v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2022ABA/225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for cheating offences arising from a bogus liquor license transfer scheme. The court held that the applicant's inducement was clear, custodial interrogation was necessary to expose collusion, and the FIR delay was justified by verification attempts.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; no case made out for bail.

Prakash Ganpat Sankapal Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

05-ABA-225-22.odt

¶2

1 / 6

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2022

¶5

Prakash Ganpat Sankapal.... Applicant
 versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr.Devidas J. Shejul, Advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Mr.P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 03rd FEBRUARY, 2022
 (through video conferencing)

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶11

with C.R.No.325/2021, dated 14/12/2021, registered with Kopri Police Station, Thane City, under sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

2. Heard Mr.Devidas J. Shejul, learned counsel for the

¶13

Applicant and Mr.P. H. Gaikwad, learned APP for the State.

¶14

3. The FIR is lodged by one Devesh Hemeshwar Bhoir. He

¶15

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR V NESARIKAR Date: 2022.02.04 14:55:00 +0530

¶16

has stated that he wanted to start his liquor shop at Kinvali,

¶17

Taluka Shahapur, District Thane. He wanted license for that.

¶18

Nesarikar

¶19

2 / 6 05-ABA-225-22.odt

¶20

However he came to know that the State Government has
stopped issuing licenses. He also came to know that the license
holders to whom the licenses were issued earlier, were
surrendering their license by taking money. The informant
searched for such persons. On 25/08/2020, the present
Applicant approached the informant. He came to the informant’s
house. He told the informant that he knew one Santosh Bhosale
residing at Gandhari Village, Kalyan and he had FL-CL license
and he was willing to transfer it to the informant for Rs.2.50
Crores. The Applicant assured the informant that he was
knowing Santosh Bhosale since past many years. He further told
that the informant would not be cheated in that transaction. On
this assurance the informant was impressed. The Applicant
further represented that the informant will have to pay Rs.30
lakhs in advance and after the license was transferred in the
informant’s name, he had to pay Rs.1.20 Crores and once it was
authorized by legal process, he would have to pay remaining
Rs.1 Crore. The Applicant told the informant to make
arrangement for Rs.30 lakhs.

¶21

3 / 6 05-ABA-225-22.odt

¶22

4. The informant made arrangement of that amount. He

¶23

made demand draft of Rs.15 lakhs. He gave Rs.15 lakhs in cash.
The Applicant contacted the informant again on 04/09/2020
and called him for meeting in his office. The informant met him
in his office on 08/09/2020. At that time, Santosh was not
present. But the Applicant made enquiries as to whether the
amount was ready. He asked the informant to write an
application giving the information about his details and other
information. On that day, the Applicant prepared an agreement
between the informant and Santosh. After that the Applicant
took informant to Tehasil office for notarizing that document. At
that time, for the first time the informant met Santosh Bhosale.
It was told to the informant that Santosh Bhosale was working
with the police department. One person was accompanying him
in uniform. That person signed the agreement as a witness. The
informant and Santosh signed that agreement and it was
notarized in Tehsil office. The informant gave of Rs.30 lakhs to
Santosh in his house. He had taken some photographs when he
handed over that amount in demand draft and cash.

¶24

4 / 6 05-ABA-225-22.odt

¶25

5. On 20/12/2020 Santosh called the informant

¶26

telephonically that the license was transferred in his name. He
told the informant that the original license was of one Subhash
Dhondu Kavate and in that license the informant’s name was
now mentioned. He also gave license number as FL-2/79, CL-
3/112. Santosh demanded Rs.2 lakhs for Challan in bank. The
informant transferred that amount in his account. Santosh then
started demanding half of the agreed amount of Rs.2.50 Crores.
The informant decided to verify as to whether the license was
genuine. He went to Mantralaya and made enquiries. He came
to know that the license was bogus. It was not transferred in his
name. After that Santosh started avoiding the informant. The
Applicant told the informant that Santosh was not contacting
him. The informant realized that he was cheated to that amount
by all the accused including the Applicant in collusion with each
other. On this basis FIR is lodged.

¶27

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
agreement was actually entered into between Santosh and the

¶28

5 / 6 05-ABA-225-22.odt

¶29

informant. The Applicant has no concern with the agreement
and he has not signed the agreement. He submitted that as
mentioned in the FIR, the transaction was from December 2020
and the FIR is lodged on 14/12/2021. This delay is inordinate
and unexplained. He further submitted that the informant
deliberately lodged the FIR at Kopri police station, though that
police station did not have jurisdiction to investigate into this
offence.

¶30

7. Learned APP opposed this application. He submitted
that the role is clearly stated in the FIR. The offence was
committed only at the Applicant’s inducement. The transaction
was entered into and Santosh had accepted that amount. The
amount is misappropriated and therefore the Applicant’s
custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶31

8. I have considered these submissions. The FIR is clear
enough. The Applicant’s role is also clear. It is only the Applicant
who had approached the informant with the proposal that the

¶32

6 / 6 05-ABA-225-22.odt

¶33

informant could get a license transferred in his name and that
he was knowing one Santosh Bhosale who could do that job. It
was at the instance and inducement of the present Applicant.
The informant had acted and parted with the amount of Rs.30
lakhs initially and Rs.2 lakhs subsequently due to collusion
between the Applicant and Santosh can be seen from the events.
As far as delay in registering the FIR is concerned, the amount
was given in December 2020. But the informant tried to find the
genuineness of the license and also tried to get in touch with
Santosh and only when his attempts failed and he realized that
the license was not genuine, he lodged the FIR. Therefore it
cannot be said that delay in this particular case will affect the
informant’s version adversely. In this situation, the Applicant’s
custodial interrogation is necessary to find out the details of
collusion. Therefore no case for grant of anticipatory bail is
made out. The application is rejected.

¶34

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Prakash Ganpat Sankapal v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Ganpat Sankapal v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abbas Nasrunnah Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Pmc Bank) through Its a. K. Dixit Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Jeehad Jaffer Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Piyush Parag Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravikant Bhagchand Varma Vs State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Prabhakar Bagul Vs State of Maharashtra