Allowed

Janardhan Onkar Deo v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Oct 2024ABA/1538/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by a pesticide seller apprehending arrest for cheating under Section 420 IPC for selling expired pesticides to the informant. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary since no other complaints were made and granted bail on a PR bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: release on PR bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety, subject to conditions.

Janardhan Onkar Deo Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:25035

¶2

956-ABA-1538-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1538 OF 2024

¶5

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4036 OF 2024
 IN ABA/1538/2024

¶6

Janardhan Onkar Deo

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra

¶9

¶10

• Mr. H. S. Surve, Advocate for the Applicant • Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for the Respondent/State • Mr. V. V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Informant *******

¶11

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:OCTOBER 15, 2024

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.At the outset, learned Counsel Mr. Bhavthankar
seeks leave to assist APP.

¶14

2.Having regard to the nature offence, he is

¶15

permitted to assist APP. Criminal Application No.
4036/2024 stands disposed of.

¶16

3.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with
with C.R. No. 174 of 2024 registered with Pimpalgaon
Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

PAGE 1 OF 4

¶18

Umesh

¶19

956-ABA-1538-2024.odt

¶20

4.First informant claims that he has purchased
pesticides from the Applicant on 09.08.2023. It is
alleged that after shelf life of the product was over,
the said product was sold to him which has caused lost
to him.

¶21

5.Learned Counsel for the Applicant has drawn
attention of the Court to the proceedings filed by the
informant before the Consumer Redressal Forum for
seeking compensation in respect of said transaction. It
is his further submission that informant had lodged
complaint with Licensing Authority which has resulted
into suspension of the license of the Applicant for a
period of 90 days. It his submission that the FIR has
been lodged after almost one year of the incident i.e.,
23.07.2024. He has drawn attention of the Court to the
documents which are placed on record indicating that
the informant himself is history-sheeter and that he is
prone to blackmailing people and in this regard, he has

¶22

filed various proceedings. Finally, it is contended that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary and hence, the liberty of the Applicant be Umesh PAGE 2 OF 4

¶23

PAGE 2 OF 4

¶24

956-ABA-1538-2024.odt

¶25

protected.

¶26

6.Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant
opposed the application. It is the contention of the
learned Counsel for the Informant that immediately on
06.10.2023 a written complaint was made to the
concerned police, however, no action was taken at the
relevant time. It is his submission that in order to
ascertain as to whether the Applicant had sold such
expired products to any other persons, his custodial
interrogation is necessary.

¶27

7. Even if it is true that there are number of offences registered against the informant, this Court would prefer to decide this application on its own merit. Perusal of the FIR indicates that there is allegation that pesticides after expiry of its shelf life was sold to the informant by the Applicant. Thus, in so far as Informant is concerned, no custodial interrogation of the Applicant is contemplated. Perusal of the police papers do not indicate that any other complaint was made against Applicant about said sale. Needless to say that after selling products, customers Umesh PAGE 3 OF 4

¶28

956-ABA-1538-2024.odt

¶29

would have lodged the complaint with the concerned

¶30

Authority or police. This Court prima facie finds that
this is not the case of custodial interrogation. Hence,
the order:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

(i) Application is allowed.

¶33

(ii) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R. No. 174 of 2024 registered with Pimpalgaon Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount.

¶34

(iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

¶35

(iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶36

(v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶37

(vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation.

¶38

 (R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶39

PAGE 4 OF 4

¶40

Umesh

Janardhan Onkar Deo v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardhan Onkar Deo 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

Pralhadsing Fulsing Usare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Machindra Bansi Jarhad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajendra Ashok Udage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Madhav Subhash Ogale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sultana Raj @ Rajmohammed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surendra Nathamal Lunkad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another