Allowed

Ashok Kedarmal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Mar 2023BA/130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court allowed the petitioner's request for release on bail pending trial for cheating and forgery. The judge held that the co-accused's allegation of money transfer to the applicant did not prima facie establish his involvement in the fraud.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two solvent sureties, subject to reporting and non-interference conditions.

Ashok Kedarmal Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

35 ba 130-13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2023

¶4

Ashok Kedarmal Sharma ..Applicant

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondents

¶7

Mrs. Pushpa Ganediwal i/b. Mr. Himit Bhayani for the Applicant. Mr. Shriram Deshmukh a/w. Priya Maurya for the Complainant. Mr. S.V.Gavand, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 28^th MARCH, 2023.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the

¶11

aforesaid Applicant, who is facing trial in Police Case No. PW/4403586/2022, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai, arising from C.R. No. 459 of 2022 registered at Versova Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for

¶13

the State. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the respective parties.

¶14

Digitally signed byPRASANNA P 3. The records prima facie reveal that the aforesaid crime was PRASANNA P SALGAONKAR SALGAONKAR Date: 2023.03.30 12:54:19 +0530

1 of 3

pps

35 ba 130-13.doc

registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by Milind Sapre. A perusal of the FIR prima facie reveals that the co-accused Manish Khobragade had lured the complainant in investing an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in M/s. Cure Magic Pvt. Ltd., on an assurance that he would get 24% profit in the said business. It is stated that the coaccused neither gave the returns, nor returned the principal amount. The first informant therefore lodged an FIR against the co-accused for cheating and other offences. Based on the said allegations, the crime came to be registered.

¶19

The name of the present Applicant is not disclosed in the FIR. The only material against the Applicant is the statement of the coaccused, wherein he has stated that he and his wife had transferred an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- in the account of the Applicant. There is no further investigation on this aspect. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Applicant was in any manner associated with the Cure Magic Pvt. Ltd. Company, or that he was involved in inducing the first informant in investing the money. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the co-accused and his wife had transferred an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in the account of the Applicant would not per se attract the provisions of Section 420 or 406 of IPC.

2 of 3

pps

35 ba 130-13.doc

Considering the nature of accusations leveled against the Applicant and the material in support thereof, in my considered view, this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the Order:-

¶24

(i) The application is allowed;

¶25

(ii) The Applicant Ashok Kedarmal Sharma, who is facing trial in Police Case No. PW/4403586/2022, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount;

¶26

(iii) The Applicant shall report to the Versova Police Station on the first day of every month till framing of the charge;

¶27

(iv) The Applicant shall not interfere with the complainant or the other witnesses, or tamper with the evidence in any manner;

¶28

(v) The Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his permanent as well as temporary address, if any, and his contact details, and/or change of residence or mobile details from time to time.

¶29

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

pps

Ashok Kedarmal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kedarmal Sharma 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

Afzal Haji Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Pandit Suryavanshi and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Victor Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangal Bhimrao Talekar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Umesh Narayan Dhanurkar Vs State of Maharashtra

Sangeeta Vijay Nair Vs the State of Maharashtra