Allowed

Karunesh Ramugrah Chaube v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Nov 2023ABA/1078/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the proprietor of a security agency accused of cheating and forgery, noting that the criminal trial would determine his complicity while ruling that he deserves discretion similar to his co-accused who was already released.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on production of Rs.30,000/- bond with sureties, requiring attendance at police station and regular court appearances.

Karunesh Ramugrah Chaube Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:34033

¶2

28-ABA-1078-2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1078 OF 2023

¶5

Karunesh Ramugrah Chaube … Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶8

¶9

Mr.J.S. Kini a/w. Mr.Aum Kini i/b Ms.Sapna Krishnappa, Advocate for Applicant.

¶10

Mr.S.H. Yadav, APP for Respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 2^ND NOVEMBER, 2023.

¶12

P C :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶14

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.64 of 2023 registered with Khargar Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 415, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘Penal Code’).

¶15

The first informant lodged a report with the allegation that Empire Estate Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. had availed services of security guards provided by Chetak Suraksha Force. The

¶16

1/4

¶17

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶18

28-ABA-1078-2023.doc

¶19

applicant is the proprietor of Chetak Suraksha Force. The licence to engage in the business of proving security agency issued to Chetak Suraksha Force had expired on 4^th January 2022, yet, Chetak Suraksha Force provided services of the security guards by furnishing document that the licence was renewed till 16^th September 2023. The applicant and co-accused Nitu Upadhyay, who was the then Supervisor of the security guards provided by Chetak Security Force, committed forgery of the documents and also defrauded the society of an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-

¶20

Mr.Kini, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was unaware of the alleged forgery of documents by Nitu Upadhyay-accused No.1. The applicant had applied for renewal of the license. Mr.Kini seeks leave to tender a licence issued by the Controlling Authority authorizing the applicant to engage in the business of providing security agency. Mr.Kini submits that the license had been issued on 28^th August 2023 and it is now valid upto 26^th August 2018. The applicant never intended to deceive either the society or the agency. Mr.Kini further submitted that Nitu Upadhyay had indulged in alleged fraudulent acts, as she was getting commission. Nitu Upadhyay has been granted pre-arrest bail by the Court of Sessions by an order dated 15^th March 2023.

¶21

Learned APP resisted the application on the ground that the

¶22

2/4

¶23

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶24

28-ABA-1078-2023.doc

¶25

applicant, being the proprietor of Chetak Suraksha Force, cannot extricate himself by blaming co-accused Nitu Upadhyay.

¶26

I have perused the allegations in the first information report. The first informant categorically asserts that documents were submitted on 23^rd January 2023 by co-accused Nitu Upadhyay. In the circumstances, whether the applicant was also a privy to the offences and has indulged in the alleged forgery of the documents would be a matter for trial. Since Nitu Upadhyay has been granted pre-arrest bail, the applicant also deserves the exercise of discretion.

¶27

Hence, the following order :

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with in C.R. No.64 of 2023 registered with Kharghar Police Station, for the offences punishable under sections 415, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, and 471 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the

¶31

3/4

¶32

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶33

28-ABA-1078-2023.doc

¶34

investigation and attend Kharghar Police Station on 8^th and 9^th November 2023. in between 10.00 am to 1.00 pm and, thereafter, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

¶35

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and/or give threat or inducement to the first informant and any of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶36

(iv) The applicant shall regularly attend the

¶37

proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶38

(v) It is clarified that these prima-facie observations

¶39

are confined to determine the entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶40

(vi) The application stands disposed.

¶41

4/4

¶42

Shraddha Talekar, PS

Karunesh Ramugrah Chaube v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunesh Ramugrah Chaube 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

Harnish Surendra Chadderwala Vs State of Maharashtra

Ajit Uddhav Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Farjin Shahid Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Akshay Balasaheb Badade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pankesh Kalyan Tandel Vs Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu

Rohan Balaso Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra