Allowed

Anil Dattaraya Kachare v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Dec 2023ABA/2404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case where the victim withdrew the refundable amount deposited by the applicant, allowing release upon execution of a bond subject to future court orders.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; applicant to release on PR Bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties. Refundable deposit of Rs.4,00,000 to be returned to the informant upon proper identification.

Anil Dattaraya Kachare Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

913-ABA-2404-22.DOC

¶2

Sayali Upasani

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2404 OF 2022

¶5

Anil Dattatraya Kachare

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Mr. Chandrakant Chavan i/b Ms. Priti Shinde, for Applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for State.

¶11

Ms. Gayatri Takalkar, for Respondent No. 2.

¶12

CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J.

¶13

DATED:- 12^th DECEMBER, 2023

¶14

PC:-

¶15

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

¶16

This application is preferred for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 263 of 2022, registered with Phaltan Police Station, Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections406, 420, 464, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

¶17

1/4

¶18

913-ABA-2404-22.DOC

¶19

The applicant and the co-accused had allegedly induced the first informant – Respondent No. 2 and her husband to part with a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by making a false representation that the son of the first informant would be secured an employment in Railways. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was allegedly paid to the co-accused - Shivaji Mane. Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid to the applicant in two tranches. The first informant further alleged that a forged appointment letter was also given to her son.

¶20

When the application was listed before the Court, by an order dated 5^th September, 2022, the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to show his bonafides and, subject to the deposit of the amount, interim protection came to be granted.

¶21

Eventually, the applicant deposited the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the Court of Session at Satara. Notice was issued to the first informant – respondent No. 2.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the respondent No. 2 may be permitted to withdraw the amount which has been deposited by the applicant in the Court of Session at Satara.

¶23

2/4

¶24

913-ABA-2404-22.DOC

¶25

The applicant was allegedly paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The applicant has set up another transaction between the applicant and the husband of the first informant. Nonetheless, since the amount which was paid to the applicant has been deposited and the applicant has been on interim protection since 5^th September, 2022, at this length of time, further custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem to be warranted.

¶26

The learned APP submitted that a forged appointment order was allegedly issued. However, in the FIR, there is no clarity as to which of the accused had allegedly issued the forged appointment order.

¶27

Since the applicant is not averse to the first informant – Respondent No. 2 withdrawing the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/subject to the outcome of the proceedings arising out of CR No. 263 of 2022, I am inclined to grant the application.

¶28

Hence, the following order:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

I) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R. No. 263 of 2022, registered with Phaltan Police Station, Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections406, 420, 464, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the applicant be released on

¶31

3/4

¶32

913-ABA-2404-22.DOC

¶33

bail on executing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶34

II) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and attend Phaltan Police Station, Satara as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

¶35

III) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

IV) The amount of Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by the applicant in the Court of Session, Satara on 6^th September, 2023, be paid to the first informant – respondent No. 2 on proper identification subject to an undertaking that respondent No. 2 will bring back the said amount in the event of an order by any Court.

¶37

V) It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to determine the entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶38

VI) The application stands disposed.

¶39

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶40

4/4

Anil Dattaraya Kachare v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Dattaraya Kachare v. 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

Mohammad Azaruddin Mulla Vs State of Maharashtra

Mohd Shadab Mohd Irfan Vs State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Haridas Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Jyosna Suhas Tapkir Vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Muktinath Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baputaj Chamantaj Patil Vs State of Maharashtra