Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a cheating case for taking Rs.5 lakhs as security deposit for a room whose possession was never delivered. Court noted criminal antecedents, more victims, pending investigation and unrecovered money, and rejected the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE SANJAY Date: SONAWANE 2024.07.09 20:03:41 +0530
Chitra Sonawane.
23.aba1600-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.1600 of 2024
Dhanashree Pramod Buga Age- 40 years, Occupation-Housewife Residence of-178, Shree Mata Niwas, Buga Galli, Khar Dantpada, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 Byculla Prison.
... Applicant
v/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Sr Inspector of Police) Khar Police Station, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400 054.
Mr Abhishek Mishra, a/w. Tauqeer Siddiqui, for the applicant. Mr Nitin B Patil, APP, for the respondent/ State. Ms Swapna P Kode, for respondent No.2/ informant.
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 8 July 2024
P.C. :
By the present application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.716 of 2023, registered at Khar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 1 of 6
Chitra Sonawane.
23.aba1600-24.doc
Page 2 of 6 ___________________________________________________ 8 July 2024
Chitra Sonawane.
23.aba1600-24.doc
leave and license agreements has induced individuals to transfer huge sums towards security deposits for Room No.178, and never hand over its possession to them. When the informant deposited Rs.5 lakhs, the applicant did not deliver the room’s possession and refused to return the deposited amount. Furthermore, the learned APP submits that the applicant has received an amount of Rs.54 lakhs. The applicant has criminal antecedents, and a similar offence has been registered against her for following the same modus operandi for a different room. Other victims have also come forward. The investigation is in progress, and the applicant’s custody is required to ascertain the persons involved in this racket and the details of the transactions. The deposited monies are yet to be recovered. Mr Patil, the learned APP, also submits that if the applicant is granted bail, she may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.
Page 3 of 6 ___________________________________________________ 8 July 2024
23.aba1600-24.doc
Chitra Sonawane.
cannot be applied. While exercising this power, the Court must exercise caution, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice or hinder the investigation by allowing tampering or destruction of evidence. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.1
“12. There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of the effective modes of investigating into the alleged crime. It is equally true that just because custodial interrogation is not required that by itself may also not be a ground to release an accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious nature. However, a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient. The State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.”
1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282.
2 SLP (Cri.) No.9949 of 2023 dated 1 March 2024
Page 4 of 6 ___________________________________________________ 8 July 2024
Chitra Sonawane.
23.aba1600-24.doc
Station for an analogous transaction. A perusal of the report in CR No.492 of 2023 reveals that the applicant, along with others, induced one Durgesh Pawar, the informant therein, to deposit a sum of Rs.8 lakhs for renting Room No.422 in Patil Pada, Khar, Mumbai. The applicant and others neither delivered the possession of Room No.422 nor returned the deposited sum to Durgesh. At the outset, the transactions, victims, and location in CR No.492 of 2023 are different and separate from the present crime, i.e., CR No.716 of 2013. In the present crime, respondent No.2/ the informant transferred Rs.5 lakhs to the applicant via online transfer modes for renting Room No.178 in the Mata Niwas Building, Khar, Mumbai, on a heavy security deposit. The applicant delayed delivering the possession of the room to the informant. Frustrated, the informant repeatedly demanded the applicant refund the deposited sum. However, the applicant responded evasively and never returned the money. The ongoing investigation has disclosed that the applicant has duped other individuals using the same technique. It also appears that more victims of the applicant’s alleged crime are coming forward. The investigation is in progress, and the money is yet to be recovered. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody for another similar offence. The applicant’s custody is deemed necessary to uncover the persons involved in the crime and the money trail.
Page 5 of 6 ___________________________________________________ 8 July 2024
Chitra Sonawane. 23.aba1600-24.doc
Given the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. As a result, the present application stands rejected.
Page 6 of 6
8 July 2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant accused of cheating by collecting security deposits for a room never delivered.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary given ongoing investigation and unrecovered money.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shrikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.Relied on¶5
2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Vs State of Union Territory ChandigarhRelied on¶6
SLP (Cri.) No.9949 of 2023 dated 1 March 2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhanashree Pramod Buga
The State of Maharashtra
Sagar Vitthal Teke
R.N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
