Dismissed

Ratna Anil Tare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Feb 2022ABA/239/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application for Ratna Anil Tare in a cheating case involving an unregistered credit society. The court held that the dishonest intention was clear from the inception due to the unreturned funds, necessitating the applicant's custodial interrogation for investigation. The stay plea was also rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; prayer for stay of order for four weeks also rejected.

Ratna Anil Tare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.239 OF 2022

¶5

Ratna Anil Tare .... Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2022
IN

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.239 OF 2022

¶8

Mukta Krishna Dev …. Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Ratna Anil Tare .... Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶9

Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Advocate i/b. Law Juris for the
Applicant in ABA/239/2022.

¶10

Smt. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE

¶12

Mr. Rajas Naik, Advocate for the Intervener in IA/368/2022.

¶13

Digitally signed byPRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2022.02.01 17:56:30 +0530

¶14

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶15

DATE : 1^st FEBRUARY, 2022 [Through Video Conferencing]

¶16

1 of 11

¶17

Deshmane (PS)

¶18

 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶19

 : 2 :

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

1.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in

¶22

connection with C.R.No.283/2021 registered at Palghar Police
Station on 21.12.2021 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 474 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under

¶23

Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection Of Interest Of
Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

¶24

2. Heard Shri Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned counsel

¶25

for the applicant and Smt. J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the
State.

¶26

3.The FIR is lodged by one Mukta Dev. She has stated
that she was residing with her family. Her husband was retired
and her son was in service. In August, 2020, the applicant and
her husband along with their daughter Nikita approached the
informant at her house. The informant was knowing the
applicant from the childhood. The applicant told the informant
that they had started one credit society by the name ‘Ratnadeep

¶27

2 of 11

¶28

 : 3 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶29

Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.’ at M.V. Super-market. She
told the informant that if the victim invested in that credit
society, she would get interest @ 15% per annum. The
informant accepted the proposal and believing the applicant,
on 5.9.2020 opened an account with the applicant’s daughter
Nikita Tare and an account number was given to the informant.
Initially she deposited Rs.7,020/- in cash in that account.
Subsequently, more amount was deposited. The informant was
given a pass-book of the credit society. The pass-book was
signed by the clerk working in that credit society. The
informant in good faith told her relatives and friends about the
investments in the credit society and accordingly they also
invested various amounts from time to time. The FIR mentions
names as Nikhil Dev, Vilas Chavan, Ramesh Chavan, Milinda
Vaiti, Hemant Dhanu etc.. The allegations are that, in all, they
deposited Rs.22,64,740/- in Ratnadeep Co-operative Credit
Society. They were to get 15% interest per annum as promised.

¶30

4.On one occasion the applicant, her husband and

¶31

3 of 11

¶32

 : 4 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶33

daughter came to the informant’s house and requested her to
invest Rs.35 Lakhs with the credit society and assured that they
would return that amount within two months. This amount
was asked for as a financial help. The informant discussed this
with others and gave Rs.33,34,250/- to the applicant. The FIR
mentions the details of such payment. It is case of the
informant that after receiving this further amount, the
applicant and other family members did not contact the
informant. When the informant questioned the applicant and
her family, they assured the informant that since the lock-down
was imposed that time, the amount would be returned after a
few days. Subsequently, they avoided the subject. The
informant tried to contact the applicant telephonically but most
of the time the call was not taken. There are allegations that
the informant and others went to their house, but, found that
the house was locked. On enquiries with the neighbours, they
came to know that all of them were not seen in their house.
They were also not found in their other flat at Virar. The
informant has stated that the applicant had blocked the

¶34

4 of 11

¶35

 : 5 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶36

telephone numbers of the investors mentioned in the FIR. The
informant realized that she and others were cheated to the
total amount of Rs.55,98,990/-. The amount was
misappropriated. On these grounds, the FIR was lodged.

¶37

5.Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant
made following submissions:

¶38

i. The FIR suppresses the material facts.

¶39

ii. The applicant herself is a victim to the knowledge of the informant and other investors.

¶40

iii. The investors had taken possession of the applicant’s
daughter’s flat forcibly. The tenant was removed. For
that, the applicant’s daughter had made complaint and
had got possession of the flat back.

¶41

iv. The applicant had made a complaint to the Senior Inspector of Police, Borivali on 5.9.2021. The applicant’s Advocate also had written a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-XI, Borivali, Mumbai on 19.10.2021. In those complaints, grievance was made

¶42

5 of 11

¶43

 : 6 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶44

against Ashok Kamble, Deepali Utekar, Rahul Kudiya, Jafar Khan, Shrikant Patil, Nitin Pote, Radhika Pote, Ajit Lad and Surendra Devrukhkar. It was case of the applicant that as per the suggestions of these persons, the applicant had given them the amount for depositing in different schemes. The amount given by the applicant was misappropriated by these persons and, thus, the applicant herself is the victim and she is not an offender. v. The applicant’s daughter Nikita had addressed complaints to various authorities making allegations against the investigating officer, particularly in respect of the incident dated 24.12.2021. In that complaint, it was alleged that the investigating officer and other police officers had visited her residence and had taken herself, her parents along with her three year old disabled child into his custody and had taken them to Borivali police station. They had entered the house and had taken charge of certain ornaments and cash amount without preparing any panchnama and all this could be verified

¶45

6 of 11

¶46

 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶47

 : 7 :

¶48

from the CCTVs installed in the building.

¶49

vi. The investigating officer is acting in collusion with the
complainant and other investors.

¶50

vii. Acceptance of the amount and not refunding that

¶51

amount is not an offence. The FIR does not show or
mention that there was any dishonest intention on her
part; which was a pre-requisite for registering the
offence.

¶52

viii. In any case the offence pertains to documentary
evidence and bank entries; and, therefore, custodial
interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

¶53

6.Learned APP responded to these submissions. The
investigating officer is also present in the Court. Learned APP
made following submissions:

¶54

i. The applicant started Ratnadeep Co-operative Credit Society, but, it was not registered. She was in control of that credit society with the co-accused Dipali Utekar. At her instance, some of the investors also deposited

¶55

7 of 11

¶56

 : 8 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶57

amounts in the account of the credit society and some of
the amount was deposited in her personal account.

¶58

ii. The money is lost. The investors have not got anything
for their investments. There are other 2-3 investors
who have similarly lost their investments.

¶59

iii. As far as the incident dated 24.12.2021 is concerned,
the investigating officer had taken permission from the
superior officers in the Zone. He had taken help of local
police station; and after completing all the formalities
had gone to the house of the applicant’s daughter and,
therefore, there was nothing illegal about it.

¶60

iv. She finally submitted that to trace money and to find
out the modus operandi, the applicant’s custodial
interrogation is necessary.

¶61

7.Learned counsel for the intervener adopted the
submissions advanced by learned APP and added that the
investors have suffered monetary losses in respect of their hard-
earned money.

¶62

8 of 11

¶63

 : 9 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶64

8.I have considered these submissions. As far as the

¶65

grievance against other accused made by the applicant is
concerned, that is totally a different subject matter. The FIR in
the present case is very specific. Inducement was made by the
present applicant and investment was made by the informant
and others on the inducement made by the applicant herself.
There was no reference to other persons to whom the applicant
has given money. The applicant had not mentioned that the
investments taken from the informant and others would be
further invested in different schemes of other accused against
whom the applicant had grievance as noted in her complaint
before the police officers. Therefore, that is a separate subject
matter for which the applicant has remedy against those
persons, if any offence is committed against her.

¶66

9.As far as the present informant and other investors
are concerned, their grievance is reflected in the FIR. The FIR
is quite elaborate. Inducement made by the applicant is
mentioned. In the first part of the FIR, it is mentioned that the

¶67

9 of 11

¶68

 : 10 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶69

amount was accepted as investment in the credit society for
which even the pass-books were issued. In the later part of the
FIR, there is a reference to the amount which was taken as a
financial help on the promise of returning the same. On both
these counts, the amount was not returned and dishonest
intention was clear from the very inception. The offence is
clearly made out.

¶70

10.As far as the incident dated 24.12.2021 is

¶71

concerned, learned APP has pointed out that the investigating
officer had obtained requisite permissions and there was no
breach of any legal requirement. If the applicant has any
grievance regarding the same, she can always take recourse to
appropriate remedies. Today I am only considering the issue of
grant of anticipatory bail and, therefore, I am not making any
observation on the claim and counter-claim about the incident
dated 24.12.2021.

¶72

11.As pointed out by learned APP, some amount has
also gone to the personal account of the applicant and some

¶73

10 of 11

¶74

 : 11 : 7.aba-239-22.odt

¶75

amount had gone to the credit society which was not even
registered. The entire transaction is illegal. Therefore, the
applicant’s custodial interrogation to find out modus operandi
and money trail is necessary. No case for grant of anticipatory
bail is made out. The application is rejected. With disposal of
this application, interim application for intervention also stands
disposed of.

¶76

12.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant
prayed for stay of this order for a period of four weeks.
However, considering the fact that the offence is serious and
practically no investigation can proceed in the absence of
custodial interrogation of the applicant, this prayer is rejected.

¶77

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶78

Deshmane (PS)

¶79

11 of 11

Ratna Anil Tare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratna Anil Tare 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

Mayur Trimbak Yashwante Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rohit @ Ankur Bhagwandas Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hari Om @ Arjun Bhavar Singh Rao Vs State of Maharashtra

Mahendran Illogovan @ Appu Harijan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naishad Subodhchandra Parikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharad Sukhdeo Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.