Allowed

Anil Anand Mulik v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Dec 2023ABA/3544/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Bombay granted bail to the accused who was a companion during the alleged deception but had no direct role in the false representation that induced the first informant to part with money. The court observed no prima facie case against him and imposed standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of pre-arrest bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000 /- with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to standard conditions of bail.

Anil Anand Mulik Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

903-aba-3544-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3544 OF 2023

¶4

Anil Anand Mulik ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Ramanik Pawar a/w. Ms. Samiksha Pawar, for the Applicant Smt. A.A. Takalkar, APP, for the Respondent/State. Mr. Ranjeet Chavan, PSI, Byculla police station.

¶6

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2023

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

¶9

APP for the State.

¶10

This application is preferred seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.601 of 2023 registered at Byculla police station for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 read with 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860.

¶11

The co-accused Sanjay Kadam had allegedly induced the first informant to part with an amount by making a false representation that he would secure room No. 2208 in a building of MHADA at Lalbaug. The co-accused Sanjay had shown the documents to the first informant. The co-accused Sanjay and other accused made the first informant to part with the total amount of Rs. 19,15,000/-. Eventually, it transpired that the said Room No. 2208 was allotted

¶12

Vishal Parekar

¶13

...1

¶14

903-aba-3544-2023.doc

¶15

to a Mill worker Smt. Kalyani Naik. The first informant realized that he was deceived to part with a sum of Rs. 19,15,000/- by making false representation and showing false and fabricated documents.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no role in the alleged deception practiced by coaccused Sanjay Kadam. The only role attributed to the applicant is that of accompanying the co-accused on 4^th January, 2018 when the first informant had allegedly met the said co-accused Sanjay Kadam.

¶17

The learned APP submitted that the applicant was also a privy to the offences. It was submitted that the applicant and the co-accused Sanjay have antecedents.

¶18

Prima facie, in the instant first information report, no role of making any false representation or inducing the first informant to part with any amount has been attributed to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant is justified in canvassing a submission that the applicant has been roped in only on the basis of assertion of the first informant that on 4^th January, 2018 the applicant had accompanied the co-accused Sanjay. It is not the prosecution case that any amount was credited to the account of the applicant or the applicant is otherwise beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transaction.

¶19

Vishal Parekar

¶20

...2

¶21

903-aba-3544-2023.doc

¶22

In the circumstances, a prima facie case is made out to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

¶23

In the event of arrest in C.R. No.601 of 2023 registered with Byculla police station, 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.

¶24

The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend Byculla police station, on 2^nd and 3^rd January, 2024 in between 10 am to 1 pm and, thereafter, as and when directed.

¶25

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶26

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

¶27

It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined

¶28

to determine entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

¶29

Application disposed.

¶30

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶31

Vishal Parekar

¶32

...3

Anil Anand Mulik v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Anand Mulik 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

Dhanshree Dhanchandra Marathe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aashish Shantaram Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ganpati Chopde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amar Dinkar Pasalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lakhan Alias Laxman Haribhau Korhale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikram Vinod Mishra Vs Pundalik Venketesh Verlekar and Anr.