Dismissed¶35

Vishal Bhartiya v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025ABA/2283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The applicant is absconding and is not co-operating with the police; accordingly no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail, and the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. ¶35

Vishal Bhartiya vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant Vishal Bhartiya in connection with FIR No. 0382 dated 13.05.2024 (Sakinaka Police Station) for offences under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶16

Court's answer

The applicant is absconding and is not co-operating with the police; accordingly no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail, and the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

As a matter of record, customers who received the complainant company's gold and silver products through the applicant had already made payments to the applicant, but he did not forward those payments to the complainant; the police, after enquiry at Hyderabad regarding Gayatri Jewellers and Sonubhai, have added Sonubhai as an accused in the FIR.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail rejected — High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Rajesh S. Patil, J.), Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2283 of 2024, decided 28.01.2025. Applicant Vishal Bhartiya, appointed by complainant M/s. Rank International Company to look after its work at Hyderabad, Telangana and parts of Maharashtra, is arraigned in FIR No. 0382 dated 13.05.2024 of Sakinaka Police Station for offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC on the allegation that, after January 2024, he stopped passing on customer payments for gold and silver sales to the company (alleged offence amount Rs.25 lacs; siphoned monies Rs.29,82,017/- per the A.P.P.). His earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 25.07.2024, and a Section 41A CrPC notice went unanswered. Holding: the applicant is absconding and not co-operating with the police; no case is made out for anticipatory bail; application rejected. The Court further recorded that customers had already paid the applicant directly and he did not remit those amounts to the complainant, and that Sonubhai of Gayatri Jewellers had been added as an accused.

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/4

¶3

3 - ABA 2283 OF 2024.doc

¶4

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2025.01.29 18:41:20 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2283 OF 2024

Vishal Bhartiya

….. Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent Ms.Sanchita P. Sontakke a/w. Mr. Karan Gajra for the Applicant. Mr.Anand S. Shalgaonkar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

Mr. V. S. Khajekar, PSI, Sakinaka Police Station.

¶13

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶14

DATE : 28^th JANUARY, 2025

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0382 dated 13^th May, 2024 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Brihan Mumbai Shahar for offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶17

The complaint has been filed by an employee on behalf of M/s.Rank International Company. It is their case that the applicant

¶18

KVM

¶19

2/4

¶20

3 - ABA 2283 OF 2024.doc

¶21

Vishal Bhartiya was appointed to look after the work of the company at Hyderabad, Telangana and some parts of the Maharashtra. The applicant/accused used to sell the product of gold and silver of the company in the said region. After sales, the customer used to pay the amount directly in the account of M/s.Rank International Company. Till January 2024, the accused promptly used to inform about the sale of the gold and silver products and the payment of that products used to be made by the customers to the company.

¶22

It is further narrated in the complaint that after January 2024, the payments from the customers with whom the accused dealt with stopped and the accused started to avoid giving answers. Hence, the company made enquiry and after such enquiry, it came to the knowledge of the company that the accused has purposely showed his difficulty as the payments were belatedly received. However the informant gave the applicant/accused a weeks time to make payments. However, thereafter also the payments were not received promptly and the information was also not given by the applicant/accused. Due to this, the company made enquiry with some some of the customers and

¶23

KVM

¶24

3/4

¶25

3 - ABA 2283 OF 2024.doc

¶26

it was found that the said customers have made payments. When the company made enquiry with the applicant/accused, he sought a week’s time to make payment. As after a week, the payment was not received, the company further made enquiries with the complainant and upon such enquiry it was found that the customers had already made payment. As the payments were not received from the accused, the company lodged an FIR against the applicant. The applicant had filed an anticipatory bail application with the Sessions Court. After hearing the applicant, the said anticipatory bail application filed in the Sessions Court was rejected by an order dated 25^th July, 2024.

¶27

The learned A.P.P. has contended that Sonubhai of Gayatri Jewellers has been added as an accused in the present proceedings. It is further stated by the A.P.P. that the accused has committed an offence to the tune of Rs.25 lacs. Hence, Sessions Court has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail application.

¶28

The A.P.P. submits that Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure notice was given to the applicant. However, he failed to file

¶29

4/4

¶30

KVM

¶31

3 - ABA 2283 OF 2024.doc

¶32

reply to the same. Hence, learned A.P.P. seeks rejection of Anticipatory Bail Application.

¶33

I have heard learned advocate for both the sides. It is a matter of record that the police had been at Hyderabad for enquiry for Gayatri Jewellers and Sonubhai. They have now added Sonubhai as accused in the FIR lodged on the complaint of the informant company. It has been found that after receipt of the gold and silver products, the customers have already made payments to the accused/present applicant. However, the present applicant has not forwarded that payment to the complainant. The learned A.P.P. submits that the custody of the applicant would be necessary in order to interrogate with regard to siphoning of monies to the tune of Rs.29,82,017/-.

¶34

It is a matter of fact that the present applicant is absconding and

¶35

is not co-operating with the police. Hence, according to me no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail. Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected .

¶36

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Vishal Bhartiya v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Bhartiya v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepa Sudesh Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Didar Dildar Hussain Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Surekha Sudhir Sakhare vs State of Maharashtra

Bharat Dnyandeo Ghadge vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Raigad vs Alisab Ibrahim Mahaldar and Ors.

Raj Subodh Singhania vs the State of Maharashtra