Allowed

Neeta Vijay Pachpute and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jul 2023ABA/455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to applicants facing charges under the Maharashtra Money Lending Act. The court imposed conditions including furnishing a surety, appearance at the investigation office, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond and complying with conditions regarding appearance, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses.

Neeta Vijay Pachpute and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

31-aba455-2021 with IAs.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2021

¶5

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.07.04 18:47:53 +0530

¶6

Neeta Vijay Pachpute & Anr.… Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.878 OF 2021 IN

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2021

¶9

Mohankumar Pandurang Patil… Applicants
In the matter between
Neeta Vijay Pachpute & Anr.… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶10

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.669 OF 2021 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2021

¶11

Sheela Sushil Kumar Madhumal… Applicants
In the matter between
Neeta Vijay Pachpute & Anr.… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶12

WITH

¶13

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2021

¶14

IN

¶15

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2021

¶16

Amruta Tushar Deshmukh… Applicants
In the matter between
Neeta Vijay Pachpute & Anr.… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶17

¶18

31-aba455-2021 with IAs.doc

¶19

Mr. Aniket Nikam with Mr. Ankur Pohade, Mr. Piyush
Toshniwal, Mr. Aashish Satpute and Mr. Amit Icham
i/by Mr. Vivek N. Arote for the applicant in ABA.

¶20

Mr. C.S. Patil i/by Mr. Arjun Singh Thakur for the
applicant in IA/878/2021.

¶21

Ms. Pooja Phangnekar for the applicant in
IA/669/2021.

¶22

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the applicant in
IA/582/2021.

¶23

Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for the respondent/State.

¶24

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶25

DATED:JULY 4, 2023

¶26

P.C.:

¶27

1.Apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.52 of 2021
dated 29 January 2021 registered at Chatushrungi Police Station,
District Pune for offences punishable under Section 39 of the
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, the applicant
is seeking relief of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶28

2.Based on report filed by one Digvijay Hemnath Rathod,
Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Department, Pune City-1,
prosecution was lodged against the applicant alleging that the
applicant is indulging in business of money lending without
holding legal and valid license. According to prosecution, the
applicants obtained blank cheques and various other documents of
title from the borrowers between the period from 1 April 2008 to
31 March 2009.

¶29

¶30

31-aba455-2021 with IAs.doc

¶31

3.The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 10 February 2021
rejected the application filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest
protection under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. The applicants, therefore, filed present anticipatory bail
application.

¶32

4.This Court by order dated 17 February 2021 granted
protection to the applicant which was continued till today. There is
no complaint or refusal of the applicant to cooperate with the
investigation. Pending present application, charge-sheet has
already been filed against the applicant.

¶33

5.Considering the period of alleged offence, i.e., from April
2008 to March 2009, provisions of the Money Lending Act, 1946
would be attracted which provides for punishment of one month.

¶34

6.According to victims, there are other allegations against the
applicants which are not investigated properly by the investigating
agency. For the said purpose, it shall be open for the victims to
adopt appropriate remedy as is available in law. However,
considering the scope of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, based on material available on record and considering
the fact that charge-sheet is already filed, relief under Section 438
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deserves to be granted.
Hence, following order:

¶35

a)In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with
C.R. No.52 of 2021 dated 29 January 2021 registered at
Chatushrungi Police Station, District Pune for offences punishable
under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)

¶36

¶37

31-aba455-2021 with IAs.doc

¶38

Act, 2014, they be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the
amount of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like
amount;

¶39

b)The applicants shall remain present before the investigating
officer on between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter as and
when called by the concerned investigating officer;
c)The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and
make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

¶40

d)The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer;

¶41

v)The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police
investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected
or yet to be collected by the police;

¶42

vi)The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond,
furnish his address and mobile number to the investigating officer,
and the court concerned, and shall not change the residence till
the final disposal of the case;

¶43

7.The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in above
terms. No costs.

¶44

8.In view of disposal of the anticipatory bail application,
nothing survives in the interim applications and the same stand
disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶46

Neeta Vijay Pachpute and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeta Vijay Pachpute and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmesh Wadhwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Darshan S Nebhwani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Kisan Motewar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amruta Tushar Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sheela Sushil Kumar Madhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Pandurang Sanap Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.