Allowed¶28

Manoj Dilip Arak v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Oct 2024ABA/549/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: anticipatory bail application allowed; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; R.M. Joshi, J.; October 09, 2024; C.R. No. 20/2024, MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad; Sections 406, 408, 420 read with Section 34 IPC; criminal breach of trust / cheating / misappropriation of goods; FIR dated 11.01.2024; goods worth Rs. 15,97,803/-; supervisor incharge of transportation; resignation 02.11.2022; false implication; shabby investigation; CCTV footage not examined; statement of Charansing; Rs. 35,000/- handed over; interim order dated 15.04.2024 confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted — interim order dated 15.04.2024 confirmed. ¶28

Manoj Dilip Arak Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted — interim order dated 15.04.2024 confirmed.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the Applicant, who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No. 20/2024 (MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad) for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

In view of the above findings, the anticipatory bail application is allowed by confirming the interim order dated 15.04.2024.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that the investigation had been done "as shabby as possible": the Investigating Officer neither ascertained the Applicant's actual job (segregating goods per invoice and preparing lists, with no responsibility to load or deliver goods) nor checked whether CCTV coverage or footage of the loading area was available, and no investigation was done on the points raised by the Applicant.

¶25

Key takeaways

Prima facie evidence on record is not sufficient to infer the Applicant's involvement in the crime. In particular, the sole supportive statement of Charansing (that he sold additional goods at the Applicant's instance and handed over money received) was recorded after about 2 years and there is nothing on record indicating the Applicant had any authority to receive money in respect of sale of goods.ratio¶27
The Court found substance in the Applicant's contention that this could be a case of false implication, as he had resigned from service on 02.11.2022.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail application ALLOWED; interim order dated 15.04.2024 CONFIRMED (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench, R.M. Joshi J., 09.10.2024). Applicant, alleged Supervisor/incharge of transportation who (per his counsel) resigned on 02.11.2022, apprehended arrest in C.R. No. 20/2024, MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad (Sections 406, 408, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC); FIR dated 11.01.2024 for crime between 03.10.2022–28.02.2023 involving goods worth Rs. 15,97,803/- allegedly misappropriated. Court held the investigation "as shabby as possible" — the IO failed to verify the Applicant's actual duties (invoice-wise listing/segregation; CCTV-covered loading area) or examine CCTV footage. The lone statement of Charansing, recorded about 2 years later, alleging sale of extra goods at the Applicant's instance and handing over of Rs. 35,000/-, carried little weight as nothing showed the Applicant had authority to receive sale monies. Prima facie record held insufficient to infer involvement; false-implication contention found substantial.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:24330

¶2

933-ABA-549-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 549 OF 2024

¶5

Manoj Dilip Arak

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra

¶8

¶9

• Mr. S. S. Naik, Advocate for the Applicant • Mr. M. K. Goyenka, APP for the Respondent/State *******

¶10

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:OCTOBER 09, 2024

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with

¶13

with C.R. No. 20/2024 registered with MIDC CIDCO Police
Station, Dist. Aurangabad for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 408, 420 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

2.FIR came to be lodged on 11.01.2024 in respect

¶15

of crime committed between 03.10.2022 to 28.02.2023.
There is allegation against present Applicant that he
is the Supervisor and incharge of transportation of the
goods. It is alleged that goods in excess of delivery
to the customers were send outside the establishment
for its sale in market and applicant is responsible for

¶16

PAGE 1 OF 4

¶17

Umesh

¶18

933-ABA-549-2024.odt

¶19

the same. It is alleged that total goods worth Rs.
15,97,803/- were misappropriated.

¶20

3.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that

¶21

the Applicant has resigned from the service on
02.11.2022 and, therefore, he is being falsely sought
to be implicated in this crime. He has drawn attention
of the Court to the contents of the application, more
particularly, paragraph 5 wherein it is specifically
stated that job of the Applicant was to prepare list of
goods as per invoice and segregate the goods for
delivery and that he had no responsibility to load or
deliver the goods to the customers. He also stated that
there is a CCTV coverage of the area wherein the goods
delivery vehicles are loaded and hence, it was possible
for investigating agency to verify involvement of the
Applicant in crime, if any.

¶22

4. Learned APP has opposed the application by contending that huge amount has been misappropriated. He has drawn attention of the Court to the statement of Charansing who has stated that at the instance of the present Applicant he had taken goods out of the factory Umesh PAGE 2 OF 4

¶23

933-ABA-549-2024.odt

¶24

and money received after selling of the said additional
goods was paid to the Applicant.

¶25

5. When there is a specific contention of the Applicant that his job is to segregate the goods as per the invoice and prepare list thereof, it was necessary for the investigating officer to ascertain the said fact. Similarly, as it is stated that the said area is covered by the CCTV, the investigating officer was expected to find out as to whether any CCTV is available and any footage is available of the incident. Perusal of the investigation papers shows that the investigation has been done as shabby as possible. Investigating officer has not considered the contentions sought to be raised by Applicant and no investigation has been done on those points. The statement of Charansing is recorded who states after about 2 years that at the instance of present Applicant he has sold additional goods in the market & Rs.35,000/- which was received was handed over to the Applicant. There is nothing on record to indicate that Applicant was having any authority to receive any money in respect of sale of goods. Prima facie evidence on Umesh PAGE 3 OF 4

¶26

933-ABA-549-2024.odt

¶27

record is not sufficient to infer involvement of
Applicant in this crime. This Court, therefore, finds
substance in the contention of the Applicant that this
could be a case of false implication of the Applicant
as he has resigned from the service.

¶28

6.In view of above, application is allowed by
confirming interim order dated 15.04.2024.

¶29

PAGE 4 OF 4

¶30

Umesh

Manoj Dilip Arak v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Dilip Arak v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Subhash Baburao Muttyal vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Mumbai and Anr.

Mohammed Islam @ Babbu @ Shahrukh Gulam Husain Indreshi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pritam Vinayak Patil and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rangya @ Rangnath Bansi Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Navnath Dattatray Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Limbaji Dhondiram Ghodke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another