Allowed

Prakash Ramdhyan Chauhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jun 2023ABA/877/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. finding the applicant to be merely a borrower without nexus to main accused who allegedly cheated investors. Bail granted on furnishing bonds and reporting to IO.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed. Applicant to release on Rs.35,000 bond with sureties, report to IO for two days, and not tamper with evidence.

Prakash Ramdhyan Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

16_aba_877_2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.877 OF 2023

¶4

Prakash Ramdhyan Chauhan

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Omprakash Dubey for the Applicant.
Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶9

CORAM: SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

¶10

 DATED: 15th JUNE, 2023.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1.The Applicant apprehends his arrest in C.R. No.588 of
2018 registered with Kurar Police Station, District-Mumbai for the
offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467,
468 and 471 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999.

¶13

2.Heard Mr. Omprakash Dubey, learned counsel for the

¶14

Applicant and Mr. S.V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent -
State. I have perused the records and considered the submissions

Megha

1/4

16_aba_877_2023.doc

advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶19

3.The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR
lodged by Rohit Gupta. The facts narrated in the FIR reveal that the
First Informant and several other investors had invested money in
Ma Kalika Co-op. Credit Society. Co-accused Pramod Kumar Mishra
and his sons were members of the Managing Committee of the said
Credit Society. It is stated that the investors were assured high
returns. It is alleged that the Committee members siphoned off
money invested by the investors.

¶20

4.The allegations against the Applicant are that he had
availed loan of Rs.08,10,14,614 out of which the Applicant had
repaid Rs.7,29,07,904/-. It is also alleged that the Applicant has also
taken loan of Rs.38,38,000/- in name of his wife and children, out of
which an amount of Rs.88,750 /- has been repaid and is liable to pay
Rs.37,49,250/-.

¶21

5.The facts narrated in the FIR indicate that the Applicant
is only a borrower, who has failed to repay the entire loan amount.
There is no prima facie material that he had any nexus with the main
accused, who were involved in inducing the investors to invest the

Megha

2/4

16_aba_877_2023.doc

money or who had cheated the investors.

¶26

6.The material on record do not prima facie indicate that
the Applicant had intention to cheat. Considering the nature of the
accusations against the Applicant, in my considered view this would
be a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

7.Under the circumstances, the application is allowed on
the following terms and conditions:-

¶28

(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in C.R. No.588

¶29

of 2018 registered with Kurar Police Station,

¶30

District-Mumbai, the Applicant shall be released on
bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- with one or two sureties to the like
amount;

¶31

(ii) The Applicant shall report to the concerned
Investigating Officer for a period of two days from
19/06/2023 and 20/06/2023 between 11.00 a.m.
to 2.00 p.m. and further as and when required by
the Investigating Officer for the purpose of
investigation;

Megha

3/4

16_aba_877_2023.doc

(iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

¶36

evidence and or influence the witnesses in any
manner.

¶37

(iv) The Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact numbers, and /or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time.

¶38

8. The application stands disposed of.

¶39

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶40

Megha

¶41

4/4

Prakash Ramdhyan Chauhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Ramdhyan Chauhan 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

Paresh Mulji Kariya Vs State of Maharashtra

Suryakant Sonu Khotkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suraj Babu Ray Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aakanksha Arindam Banerjee Vs State of Maharashtra

Mohsin Zubair Chhapra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Reshma Yasin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra