Allowed

Alpa Ketan Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Aug 2024ABA/2363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a housewife falsely implicated in a criminal breach of trust and cheating case due to her marriage to the primary accused. The court noted she did not benefit financially as funds were transferred back to the co-accused, and the State did not require her custody.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to executing PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing sureties.

Alpa Ketan Thakkar vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.09.07 02:27:50 +0530

¶2

11.aba2363-24.doc

¶3

Chitra Sonawane.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.2363 of 2024

¶5

Alpa Ketan Thakkar Adult 45 years, Occupation- Housewife Residing at D-404, Tirupati Dham, Near Goldnest, Indralok Phase-I, Bhayander (E), Thane – 401105

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

v/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Tardeo Police Station)

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Mr Prasad Borkar, a/w. Mr Manoj Borkar, for the Applicant. Mr Amit A Palkar, APP, for Respondent State. PSI VJ Dhumal, Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai, is present.

¶11

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 3 September 2024

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.314 of 2024, registered at Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant’s husband, identified as accused No.1, is the proprietor of Bhagyadhan Lakshmi Co. and holds a trading account with Zerodha. The coaccused received funds in the firm’s account and invested them in stock market. From 3 April 2023 to 20 August 2023, the

Page 1 of 4

3 September 2024

11.aba2363-24.doc

Chitra Sonawane.

informant gave Rs.60,00,000/- to the applicant and her husband, for investment purposes. In return, the co-accused issued a security cheque for this amount. Between 11 May 2023 and 15 March 2024, the co-accused repaid Rs.29,77,600/- to the informant. Despite multiple reminders, the co-accused failed to return the remaining amount and asked the informant to deposit the security cheque, which got dishonoured due to ‘stop payment’ instructions. Consequently, the informant filed the present FIR.

¶20

Mr Prasad Borkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, contends that the genesis of the offence is of a civil nature. The learned Counsel explains that although the applicant received Rs.10,00,000/-, this sum was transferred to the co-accused’s account. Mr Borkar asserts the applicant’s innocence, stating that she has been falsely implicated in the present crime due to her being the wife of the co-accused. Further, the applicant is willing to comply with the conditions imposed by the Court.

¶21

At the outset, Mr Amit Palkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, on instructions from the investigating officer present in the Court, acknowledges that the applicant has not benefited from the transaction, thus not necessitating her custody. Furthermore, he consents to granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Page 2 of 4

3 September 2024

Chitra Sonawane.

11.aba2363-24.doc

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the informant deposited Rs.60,00,000/- with the co-accused for investment purposes, of which Rs.29,77,600/- have been repaid. The informant's main grievance is the non-payment of the remaining amount. The applicant’s involvement in the alleged crime is limited to receiving Rs.10,00,000/- in her bank account. However, the bank statements show that this amount was transferred from the applicant’s account to the co-accused’s account. At first glance, the applicant does not seems to have been benefited from the informant’s investments. Considering this and the fact that the investigation is nearing completion, and the prosecution does not require the applicant’s custody, consent is given to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i. In the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with CR No.314 of 2024, registered at Tardeo Police Station, she shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶29

ii. The applicant shall attend the police

Page 3 of 4

3 September 2024

Chitra Sonawane.

11.aba2363-24.doc

station as and when required.

¶35

iii. The applicant, herself or through any other person, shall not indulge in any activity that would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

¶36

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

3 September 2024

Alpa Ketan Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alpa Ketan Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sumer Dharmesh Merchant vs State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Narayan Jadhav @ Shivaji Narayan Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Sahebrao Yeole vs State of Maharashtra

Pramodkumar Upendra Sahu vs State of Maharashtra

Vishal Hasmukh Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Milind Kashinath Kamble vs State of Maharashtra