Allowed

Ganesh Dattatraya Jagdale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2023ABA/113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that there was no prima facie material showing the applicant was involved in cheating. The court allowed the application subject to conditions regarding bond execution, reporting, and informing the investigation officer of contact details.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing PR bonds of Rs. 20,000/- with sureties and compliance with reporting conditions.

Ganesh Dattatraya Jagdale Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Megha 27_aba_113_2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2023

¶4

Ganesh Dattatraya Jagdale ...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Anr....Respondents

¶7

Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar for the Applicant.
Mrs. S.S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent -State.

¶8

 CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
 DATED : 24th MARCH, 2023.

¶9

P. C. :-

¶10

1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed

¶11

by the aforesaid Applicant apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 501 of
2022 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur, for the
offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of the IPC.

¶12

2.Heard Mr. Vadgaonkar, learned counsel for the Applicant
and Mrs. Kaushik, learned APP for the Respondent -State. I have
perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶13

1/3

¶14

Megha 27_aba_113_2023.doc

¶15

3. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the first informant is the
proprietor of M/s. J.M. Aluminum and Glass at Solapur. He is in the
business of sale of aluminum windows, partition, doors and glass items,
etc. The first informant has alleged that some time in the month of
July-2020 the Applicant had given him the phone number of co-
accused Karan Bothara and told him that he is also in the same
business. The first informant contacted with co-accused Karan Bothara
and placed an order for several items worth Rs.2,76,302/-. It is stated
that said Karan Bothara did not supply the material under the pretext
of lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic. The Applicant refused to
supply the goods or repay the said amount even after lifting of the
lockdown. The first informant therefore lodged the FIR alleging that he
has been cheated.

¶16

4. The only allegation against the Applicant herein is that he had
given the phone number of the co-accused- Karan Bothara to the first
informant. There is no prima facie material to show that the Applicant
herein was involved in cheating the first informant. He is not a
beneficiary of the transaction between the first informant and said
Bothara.

¶17

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my
considered view this is not a case, which would justify custodial

¶18

2/3

¶19

Megha 27_aba_113_2023.doc

¶20

interrogation. Hence, the application is allowed on the following terms
and conditions:-

¶21

(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in C.R.

¶22

No.501 of 2022 registered with Vijapur Naka Police

¶23

Station, Solapur, the Applicant shall be released on

¶24

bail on furnishing PR bonds in the sum of

¶25

Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties to the like

¶26

amount;

¶27

(ii) The Applicant shall report to the concerned

¶28

Investigating Officer for a period of two days from

¶29

27/03/2023 between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and

¶30

further as and when required by the Investigating

¶31

Officer;

¶32

(iii) The Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer
informed of his current address and mobile contact
numbers, and /or change of residence or mobile

¶33

details, if any, from time to time.

¶34

6. The application stands disposed of.

¶35

 (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by MEGHASPARAB MEGHA SPARABDate:2023.03.28 18:41:52 +0530

¶37

3/3

Ganesh Dattatraya Jagdale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Dattatraya Jagdale v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Sameer Salim Sayed and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Govind Parekh and Anr. Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.

Samad Ibrahim Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Siddhant Raju Navayneet @ Baba Vs State of Maharashtra

Shalivahan Bhagwat Kolekar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajiv Sahajnarayan Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra