Anticipatory bail application rejected in fraud case involving cheque issuance and collusion. Court found declarations disowning son were a camouflage to facilitate crime. Interim protection order extended pending Supreme Court appeal.
Application rejected; Interim protection order extended for two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
aba1285.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
930 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1285 OF 2023
….Applicants
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & another
…..Respondents
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Sandip Sapkal, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the State.
Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel instructed by Ms. Y. A. Namde, Advocate for the informant.
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for intervenor.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2023.
PER COURT :
No. 0546/2023 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Institutions) Act.
aba1285.23.odt
aba1285.23.odt
informant. Since transfer of licence was not effected, informant found himself to be duped by applicants and co-accused. Hence, this report.
aba1285.23.odt
compelling circumstances, it cannot be presumed that applicants are party to the transactions in question.
aba1285.23.odt
and informant refers to the cheque which was issued by applicant No. 1 and hence according to them, there is no substance in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that the cheque was obtained under force and coercion. Learned APP submits that there is statement of Deepali Borse recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure indicating presence of applicant No. 1 at the time of transaction in question. He also relied upon statements of investors in the plots of Krushna Associates and Developers. These witnesses also claim to have handed over money to applicant No. 1 and transaction being entered into with applicant No. 1 and co-accused Amit.
aba1285.23.odt
the affdavit fled by Amit before the competent authority indicates his place of residence along with applicants much after the alleged declaration made by them. Apart from this, there is agreement between Amit and informant/victim in respect of cheque issued by applicant No. 1 towards repayment of amount of Rs. 52,00,000/-. It mentions cheque number, amount etc. In this backdrop, contention of applicant No. 2 that the said cheque was issued by her by making signature of applicant No. 1 and it was handed over under pressure is not acceptable for two reasons. Firstly, there is no complaint with police in respect of the alleged incident occurred with Amit indicating he being abducted and assaulted etc. Secondly, the handwriting appearing from the signature of applicant No. 2 on complaint dated 23rd April, 2023, makes it improbable that she could even copy/forge signature of applicant No. 1. Most pertinently, the cheque is not dishonoured for difference in signature but it was dishonoured as payment was stopped. Thus, this Court fnds no substance at this stage in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for applicants that the cheque in question was signed under the circumstances as mentioned in complaint dated 23rd April, 2023. Apart from this, there are statements of witnesses indicating that the plotting scheme was introduced by applicant No. 1 and co-accused Amit and
aba1285.23.odt
investments were called from investors. Their statements show that money was handed over to applicant No. 1 in the said transaction. This also shows that applicant No. 1 along with co-accused Amit was doing business irrespective of the fact of publication of notice in the year 2015. This evidence coupled with receipt of notice by applicant No. 1 on behalf of co-accused Amit, more than suffciently indicates the collusion on part of all accused in commission of crime.
aba1285.23.odt
therein, she is also not entitled to any relief. Hence, application is rejected.
opposed the said request.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where there is prima facie collusion for fraud despite claims of severing ties.
Whether declarations of severing ties protect applicants from charges of abetting fraud committed by their family members.
Whether an interim protection order should be extended pending appeal to the Supreme Court.
Jagdish Dipchand Khattar
Dipti w/o Jagdish Khattar
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court