Allowed

Pratham Rajesh Suchak v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jul 2024BA/2658/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal matter involving online betting, holding that no custodial interrogation was required as no evidence was recovered from his custody and the case diary did not point to specific involvement.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety and complying with reporting conditions.

Pratham Rajesh Suchak vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(29)-BA-2658-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2658 OF 2024

¶5

Pratham Rajesh Suchak ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Jahnavi S. Karnik, for the applicant.

¶7

Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP, for the Respondent / State.

¶8

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

¶9

DATE : 23RD JULY, 2024.

¶10

PC:

¶11

Heard.

¶12

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.107 of 2024, registered with Ozar Police Station, Nashik Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and section 4(a) and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶13

The offence is related to online betting on IPL Cricket matches.

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

varsha

¶16

(29)-BA-2658-2024.doc

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was not named in the FIR and he was not found in the hotel where from the accused nos. 1 and 2 were arrested.

¶18

As far as the applicant is concerned, having gone through the FIR and the case diary available on record, it is evident that nothing was recovered from the applicant and except the allegation that the applicant is involved along with accused nos. 1 and 2 in the alleged offence nothing is pointed out.

¶19

6. The applicant is in custody from last 2 months.

¶20

Thus, considering the allegations against the applicant, I am of the opinion that further custodial interrogation is not required and therefore, though the learned APP strongly opposing the application, I am of the opinion that the application needs to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

i) Criminal application is allowed;

¶23

ii) It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.107 of 2024, registered with Ozar Police Station, Nashik Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 4(a) and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and section 66(d) of the

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

varsha

¶26

(29)-BA-2658-2024.doc

¶27

Information Technology Act, 2000, on furnishing P.R.Bond of Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand with one solvent surety in the like amount;

¶28

iii) The applicant shall attend the Police Station on 1^st and 16^th day of every month between 10.00a.m to 11.00 a.m., till the filing of the charge-sheet or for six months from today, whichever is earlier.

¶29

iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also not tamper with the evidence;

¶30

v) Liberty is granted to the State for cancellation of bail in case of there is breach any condition or if the applicant commits any serious offence.

¶31

vi) The applicant shall attend the trial before the trial Court regularly on every date unless exemption is granted by the trial.

¶32

The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

¶34

3 of 3

¶35

varsha

Pratham Rajesh Suchak v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratham Rajesh Suchak 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

Adv. Mukund Madhukar Dudhkawale vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Aadil Javed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Praveen Ashok Babar vs State of Maharashtra

Dolma Raju Tamong vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Subhashchandra Gupta vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Prakash Gosavi vs State of Maharashtra