Dismissed¶¶22

Sonu Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Mar 2025ABA/606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Anticipatory Bail Application No. 606/2025; Sonu Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. State of Maharashtra; Coram: Rajesh S. Patil, J.; decided 18 March 2025; FIR No.210/2024, Manikpur Police Station, Mira-Bhayandar/Vasai-Virar; Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 IPC; Section 3 MPID Act; Section 438 CrPC; Section 482 BNSS 2023; pre-arrest bail rejected; 115 complainants; Rs.3,21,70,000/- cheated; Rs.15,30,000/- informant's payment; custodial interrogation required.

What did the court decide?

No case is made out to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant: his physical presence is necessary for interrogation, 115 persons have complained against him, and witness statements show he was present when witnesses attended the office for booking flats; the anticipatory bail application is rejected. ¶¶22

Sonu Rajendra Bahadur Singh vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:12943

¶2

Diksha Rane 10 ABA 606-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 606/2025

¶5

SONU RAJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH ..APPLICANT VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶6

Adv. U. L. Singh a/w. Adv. Manoj Gupta for applicant. Mr. A. A. Naik, APP for State.

¶7

PSI Vinod Wagh, Manikpur Police Station.

¶8

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶9

DATE : MARCH 18, 2025.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) No.210/2024 registered with the Manikpur Police Station, District Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the MPID Act.

¶12

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant along with his brother and other accused persons duped the

¶13

¶14

Diksha Rane 10 ABA 606-2025.doc

¶15

informant and other witnesses by inducing them to invest their monies for purchasing house at a cheaper rate and accordingly, cheated them for an amount of Rs.3,21,70,000/-. As neither house nor the monies were returned back, an FIR has been lodged.

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that though accused no.1 is the brother of the present applicant, the present applicant has no role to play in the crime. Except one paragraph mentioned in the complaint, there are no allegations made against the present applicant. He submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant and the applicant is ready to cooperate with the police.

¶17

4. The learned APP submits that the present applicant is the brother of the main accused who is behind the bars. He submits that there are at least 115 persons who have complaint against present applicant. The crime has been registered for the offence under IPC and also under Section 3 of the MPID Act. He submits that if the present applicant is granted bail, there is a possibility of the applicant tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the present application should be rejected.

¶18

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

¶19

¶20

Diksha Rane 10 ABA 606-2025.doc

¶21

learned APP for the State. I have also gone through the documents on record.

¶22

6. It is the case of the informant in the complaint alleged along with the FIR that the informant had booked two rooms and paid consideration of Rs.15,30,000/- by cash and cheque. Accordingly, an agreement was executed, but however, the rooms were never allotted to him neither the amount paid by him was returned back. At present 115 people have come forward to complain against the present applicant. It is also the submission of the State that the accused have purchased properties at their native place at Uttar Pradesh. The IO has recorded the statements of the witnesses which show that the present applicant was present along with other accused when the witnesses had attended the office for the purpose of booking their flats. The physical presence of the present applicant is necessary for the purpose of interrogation. Hence, no case is made out to grant prearrest bail to the present applicant. The anticipatory bail application is rejected and disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶24

Sonu Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. the 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

Kishor Kumar Thakur S/O Anand Kumar Thakur and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Sameer Dashrath Bhandari vs State of Maharashtra

Katmandu Apparel Pvt. Ltd. vs Jiangsu Guotai International Group Guomao Co. Ltd.

B R Builders And Developer vs Ashok Phootarmal Jain

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Shiba Charan kandher

Sunil Babu Rawool and Ors. vs Nilesh Sakharam Kadav and Anr.