Allowed

Karuna Shivdas Kale v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Sept 2024ABA/2462/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge permitted anticipatory bail in a cheating case involving a false promise to secure employment, holding the applicant's custody unnecessary as she did not benefit from the alleged transaction and is ready to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties and undertaking not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Karuna Shivdas Kale vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAYSONAWANE SANJAYSONAWANE Date:2024.09.04 01:51:33 +0530 Chitra Sonawane 911-ABA-2462-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No.2462 of 2024

¶3

Karuna Shivdas Kale An adult, Occ:Household, Hindu Adult, Inhabitant of Thane, SS-3, Room No.294, Sector 7, Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai, Thane

¶4

…... Applicant.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra (Through Sr. Inspector of Police Nehru Nagar Police Station, in CR No.160/2024)

¶7

…... Respondent.

¶8

Mr Rahul Tiwari a/w Mohit Darji for the applicant. Mr Swapnil Pednekar APP for Respondent/State. PSI SR Gadge, Nehru Nagar Police Station, is present.

¶9

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

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard Mr Rahul Tiwari, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr Swapnil Pednekar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State.

¶12

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail, in CR No.160 of 2024, registered at Nehru Nagar Police Station,

¶13

Page No. 1 of 3 ____________________________________________ 3 September 2024.

¶14

Chitra Sonawane 911-ABA-2462-2024.doc

¶15

Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

According to the prosecution, the applicant and co-accused, deceived the informant by accepting Rs.6,00,000/- under the false promise of securing a job for the post of clerk in Municipal Corporation. However, they reneged on this commitment and refused to refund the money.

¶17

Mr Rahul Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant, a homemaker, has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He points out that there was an unexplained and unjustifiable delay in filing the FIR. The dispute, he claims, is actually between co-accused, Pawan Gupta and the informant, and the FIR is an attempt to extort the alleged amount from the applicant, who is not the beneficiary. The only accusation against the applicant is that she facilitated an introduction between the informant and co-accused, who allegedly accepted the amount. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

¶18

Mr Swapnil Pednekar, the learned APP, representing the State, acknowledges applicant’s limited role in the crime and on instructions, submits that the applicant’s custody is not required.

¶19

Page No. 2 of 3 ____________________________________________ 3 September 2024.

¶20

Chitra Sonawane 911-ABA-2462-2024.doc

¶21

Upon examining the records, it appears that the applicant facilitated an introduction between the informant and the coaccused, who received the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The applicant neither received nor benefited from the alleged amount. The learned APP, acknowledges that applicant’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. Considering the nature of the allegations this Court is inclined to allow the application. Hence, the following order.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) In the event of the applicant’s arrest, in connection with CR No.160 of 2024, registered at Nehru Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶24

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

¶25

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

[ R. N. Laddha,J. ]

¶27

Page No. 3 of 3 ____________________________________________ 3 September 2024.

Karuna Shivdas Kale v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuna Shivdas Kale 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

Sumer Dharmesh Merchant vs State of Maharashtra

Guddu Vishwanath Kataria @ Parvez Rashid Khan vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamlesh Ramsakal Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

Jignesh Bharatbhai Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Adnan Rais Qureshi and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Rizwan Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.