Allowed

Nuruddin Abdul Rehman Jalgaonkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jul 2022IA/428/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim bail application by accused in cheating case (SS. 420, 406 IPC) allowed. Court held that deposit of Rs.20 Lakhs against investor's claim and nature of other transactions (money lending) warranted interim bail with standard conditions, noting other cheating allegations require separate trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; release on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- each and two sureties; standard conditions imposed.

Nuruddin Abdul Rehman Jalgaonkar Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

SWAROOP Digitally signed bySWAROOP SHARADPHADKE SHARAD PHADKEDate: 2022.07.1818:37:03 +0530

¶2

18 aba 2838 of 2021.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2838 OF 2021

¶4

…
Irshad Abdul Razzak Jogilkar and Anr. Applicants
versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2022

¶7

…
Nuruddin Abdul Rehman Jalgaonkar Applicant
and
…
Irshad Abdul Razzak Jogilkar and Anr. Applicants
versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶8

Mr. Owasis Jahagirdar i/by Ms. Dipti Karadkar, for Applicant.
Ms. Misbaah Solkar, for Intervener.
Mr. Y.Y.Dabke, APP, for State.
Mr. J.T.Watve, PSI Mangaon Police Station, present.

¶9

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 18th JULY, 2022

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for

¶13

the State.

¶14

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.172

¶15

of 2021 registered with Mangaon Police Station for the offences punishable under

¶16

Section 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

3. Mr. Nuruddin Jalgaonkar, the first informant, lodged a report with the

¶18

allegations that during the period October, 2018 to October, 2019 on the

¶19

SSP 1/4

¶20

18 aba 2838 of 2021.doc

¶21

representation of the Applicants, the first informant had invested a sum of Rs.16 Lakhs
in the scrap business, which the Applicants were engaged in. The Applicants had
promised 50% share in the profits from the said business. The Applicants neither
repaid the amount of Rs.16 Lakhs which the first informant was induced to invest on
the strength of the false representation, nor paid part of the profits as promised.
Hence, the first informant lodged a report.

¶22

4.In the report, the first informant also alleged that other investors, who
have invested the amount with the Applicants, were also deceived.

¶23

5.On 13th December, 2021, on behalf of the Applicants, a statement was
made that the Applicants would deposit a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs in the trial court. On
the basis of the said statement, the Applicants were protected from arrest. The said
position continues to operate till date.

¶24

6.The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants have
since deposited a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs in the trial Court.

¶25

7.I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants, the learned APP for
the State and the learned Counsel for the Intervener.

¶26

8.The learned APP and the learned Counsel for the Intervener submitted
that the deposit of Rs.20 Lakhs in the trial court would not enure for the benefit of the
Applicants as the Applicants have duped other persons to the tune of Rs.80 Lakhs. To
the Intervention Application, the first informant has annexed a copy of the MOU

¶27

SSP 2/4

¶28

18 aba 2838 of 2021.doc

¶29

executed by the Applicants in favour of one Hasan Mohammad Kagdi. Under the said
MOU, the Applicants purportedly acknowledged to have received a sum of Rs.55
Lakhs from the said Mr. Kagdi.

¶30

9.The material on record indicates that there were financial transactions
between the parties. The question as to whether the intention of the Applicants was
dishonest since the inception of the transaction, that is, when the Applicants allegedly
induced the first informant to invest the money, would be a matter for evidence and
trial. In the case at hand, the Applicants have deposited a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs against
the alleged investment of Rs.16 Lakhs made by the first informant.

¶31

10.So far as the allegations of the Applicants having duped other persons,
having regard to the nature of the memorandum of understanding relied upon by the
Intervener as well as the documents which are placed on record by the Applicants, it
appears that the transactions were in the nature of money lending. Out of the said
amount of Rs.55 Lakhs, Mr. Kagdi claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.43 Lakhs in cash.
It would, therefore, be appropriate that the aggrieved person/s initiate appropriate
action against the Applicants as may be permissible in law. The said factor, therefore,
cannot be arrayed against the Applicants in declining the relief of pre-arrest bail in this
case.

¶32

11. Hence, the following order :

¶33

ORDER

¶34

SSP 3/4

¶35

18 aba 2838 of 2021.doc

¶36

(i)The Application stands allowed.

¶37

(ii)In the event of the arrest of the Applicants in C.R.No.172 of 2021

¶38

registered with Mangaon Police Station, 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.

¶39

(iii)The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence

¶40

and/or give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

(iv)The Applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and report
to the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶42

(v)The Applicants shall submit their specimen hand writings and
signatures, if directed by the Investigating Officer.

¶43

(vi)The Applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned
Magistrate without prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶44

(vi)By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that this order is passed
on the basis of the deposit of Rs.20 Lakhs by the Applicants and is restricted to
aforesaid C.R.No.172 of 2021 and the observations made hereinabove may not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the rights and liabilities of the Applicants qua
other cases which are or may be filed.

¶45

(vii)The Interim Application also stand disposed.

¶46

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶47

SSP 4/4

Nuruddin Abdul Rehman Jalgaonkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nuruddin Abdul Rehman Jalgaonkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekhar Raje Vs C.B.I

Sudhakar Appu Ail Vs C.B.I

The Custodian Vs Kalpanaben Shah

Mr. Dhanesh Daramaji Patil vs Sou. Asha Anant Mhatre, Thr. Coa. Mr. Anant Tukaram Mhatre

Prithviraj Bhagwan Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Satish Appa Ithape Alias Satish Appa Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra