Pathan Sarfaraj Khan Ahmad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 22/2025, registered with Pundlik Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Section 409 r/w. 34 of the IPC.

¶14

3] This Court, by order dated 17.02.2025, has granted interim protection in favour of the applicant for the submissions and reasons stated in para nos.3 to 6 as noted below :

¶15

3]The allegation against the applicant is
that the applicant has transferred the amount
of Rs.11,17,104/- and Rs.1,02,600/- from the
account of customers into some other two
accounts and has taken benefit of the said
amount.

¶16

2

¶17

187.25ABA

¶18

4]The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the borrower has paid
Rs.11,17,104/- online in the account of the
company. The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant is the Collection
Manager and the applicant has no access to the
transferred amount in the account of customers.
In the instant case, the amount is received
from one Finance Company to other Finance
Company and he has no access to the account to
transfer the said amount to any other account.
As regards the loan amount of Rs.1,02,600/-,
the borrower had made an excess payment of
Rs.1,02,600/- and the same was refunded to the
customer by the company. The amount of
foreclosure was paid online to the account of
the company. Therefore, the applicant is not
involved in the alleged crime.

¶19

5]The learned APP submits that the
applicant has done alleged transfers and he had
authority to do so.

¶20

6]Prima facie, the contention of the
applicant appears to be probable. The applicant
cannot have access to the account of customers
to transfer the amounts in some other
customers. Also, evidence that he has benefited
from the same is not forthcoming.

¶21

4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of the aforesaid order, the applicant has cooperated with the investigation.

¶22

5] The learned APP has not demonstrated how the amount from the account of the customer could have been transferred by the applicant to the other accounts.

¶23

3

¶24

187.25ABA

¶25

6] In view of the same, the interim protection granted by order dated 17.02.2025 stands confirmed, in the following terms :

¶26

i] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶27

ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

¶28

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

¶29

7] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶30

8] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶31

4

¶32

187.25ABA

¶33

9] The application stands disposed of.

¶34

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶35

DDC

Pathan Sarfaraj Khan Ahmad Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathan Sarfaraj Khan Ahmad Khan 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

R.K.Mishra and Sons vs Union of India and Anr. through Its the Chairman and Anr.

Suresh P. Patwa and Anr. vs Bharat Jethalal Maniar

Nazeer Ahmed Janimiya Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dnyaneshwar Bapurao Chavan Vs Jagdish Dilip Raut and Another

Ansar Saleem Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Archana Yogesh Bhavsar Vs the Superintendent of Police and Others