Dismissed

Sagar S/O Bapuso Nichite v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2023CRL.P/102145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected the petitioner's bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He was accused of cheating and operating an unregulated deposit scheme. Due to the massive fund scale, multiple victims, and risk of absconding, the court distinguished cited precedents and refused bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail seeking release from judicial custody is rejected.

Sagar S/O Bapuso Nichite Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102145 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAGAR S/O. BAPUSO NICHITE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC:M. D. INCAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD, BALINGE, DIST: KOLHAPUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2001, C WING, GANGA EAST APARTMENT, K. K. MARKET, NEAR SHANKAR MAHARAJA MATH, DHANAKAWADI, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANKIT R. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PSI, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, C.E.N CRIME POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD 580011.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN BELAGAVI C.E.N. CRIME P.S CRIME NO. 05/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 21 (1) (2) (3) OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, 2019 AND SECTION 406 AND 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE PENDING TRAIL OF THE SAID CASE, WHO IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN THE ABOVE SAID CRIME.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) to release him on bail in Crime No.05/2023 of CEN Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and under Sections 21(1)(2)(3) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

¶22

In support of his petition, petitioner has contended that the he is innocent of the offences alleged. He has not committed the alleged offences. There are no grounds to connect him with the alleged crime. He is falsely implicated in the case. There are no specific allegations against him. He is in the judicial custody since 03.08.2023. He is the only earning person of the family. He is the permanent resident of address given in the cause title. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and prays to allow the petition.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶25

In support of his arguments learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner has relied upon the following citations:

¶27

1. S.K.Alagh Vs. State of Uttara Pradesh and Others¹ ( S.K.Alagh)

¶28

2. Praveen K.P. Vs. State of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor and Another² (Praveen

¶29

K.P.)

¶30

3. Shivanand Somaling Hasu Vs. The State of Karnataka³ (Shivanand Somaling Hasu)

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶32

submitted oral objections stating that on 24.01.2023, one Basavaraj Lagamappa Maradi, lodged a complaint stating that he came to know that accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite is running company in name and style “Incapital Management Private Limited Pune” and taking investments from the people. One Jagadish Patil and Sunil kajagar, have also invested and getting returns of 1 (2008) 5 SCC 662

¶33

2 (2023) SCC Online Ker 1972

¶34

3 Criminal Appeal No.4882/2023, D.D. 03.08.2023.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶37

Rs.20,000/- per month for investment of Rs.1,00,000/- in the said company. Sri.Kapil Ishwar Magadum and Anil Nagappa Kajagar, were also informed him that they have invested in the said company and getting huge profits. When things stood thus, on 07.08.2021, Jagadish Patil, Sunil Kajagar and Laxman Maruti Balareddi, came to his house along with accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite. He asked complainant to invest money in the said company that he will get back the entire amount within a period of 10 month.

¶38

4.1. When he questioned, petitioner/accused No.1-

¶39

Sagar Bapuso Nichite, as to how he able to give such huge returns, accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite said that he will invest in the share market through trading at Angel Broking and able to get huge returns and share the same with all the investors and he also showed the screenshot of the returns got by the accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite and other investors who have come along with him also have assured him that they are already getting the huge returns.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶42

4.2. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite used to visit Hukkeri and address the gathering and convince the people about huge returns which are going to get if investment is made in his company. Accused No.2-Rajendra Chandrakant Jagatap and Nitin Chandrakant Gaikwad also attended the said meetings and address the public. In this background, on 27.08.2021, the complainant has credited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/through RTGS to account number provided by the accused. On the same day, his sonUmesh Basavaraj Maradi, also invested a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- by transferring the same to the account of the accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite.

¶43

4.3. About 3-4 days, thereafter accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite came to the house of complainant and issued 10 cheques each to the complainant and his son with different dates and explained how to claim returns. After one month, complainant was able to withdraw sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through one of the cheque given by the accused. Similarly, his son withdrew Rs.5,00,000/- from

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶45

the bank account of accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite. However in the next month, accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite requested the complainant and his son not to present the remaining cheques and took them back and saying that they would issue fresh cheues. In fact he issued another cheque for sum of Rs.22,50,000/- each to the complainant and his son. However, when they were presented to the bank they were dishonored on ground of “Account is not having sufficient Funds”.

¶46

4.4. Later he came to know that the accused

¶47

persons have cheated several people of the said area. Though the complainant went in search of accused persons at the address given by them they were not available and their cell phones were also switch off. The complainant and also others have invested total sum of Rs.1,26,00,000/- as detailed in the complaint. Out of it Rs.79,70,000/- is due to be paid by the accused persons.

¶48

4.5. Based on the complaint, case is registered in Crime No.05/2023 of CEN Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶50

¶51

and under Sections 21(1)(2)(3) of Banning of

¶52

Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and investigation is taken up. Already cases in crime No.832/2022 of Goregaon Police Station and 116/2022 of Gokak Police Station are registered against the petitioner and others for similar offence, if release on bail petitioner may tamper or threatened with the witnesses or he may abscond. Delay and protract the proceeding and prays to reject the petition.

¶53

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶54

As it is evident from the complaint, on

¶55

24.01.2023, one Basavaraj Lagamappa Maradi, lodged a complaint stating that he came to know that accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite is running company in name and style “Incapital Management Private Limited Pune” and taking investments from the people. One Jagadish Patil and Sunil kajagar, have also invested and getting returns of Rs.20,000/- per month for investment of Rs.1,00,000/- in the said company. Sri.Kapil Ishwar Magadum and Anil Nagappa Kajagar, were also informed

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶58

him that they have invested in the said company and getting huge profits. When things stood thus, on 07.08.2021, Jagadish Patil, Sunil Kajagar and Laxman Maruti Balareddi, came to his house along with accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite. He asked complainant to invest money in the said company that he will get back the entire amount within a period of 10 month.

¶59

6.1. When he questioned, petitioner/accused No.1Sagar Bapuso Nichite, as to how he able to give such huge returns, accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite said that he will invest in the share market through trading at Angel Broking and able to get huge returns and share the same with all the investors and he also showed the screenshot of the returns got by the accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite and other investors who have come along with him also have assured him that they are already getting the huge returns.

¶60

6.2. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite used to visit Hukkeri and address the gathering and convince the people about

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶63

huge returns which are going to get if investment is made in his company. Accused No.2-Rajendra Chandrakant Jagatap and Nitin Chandrakant Gaikwad also attended the said meetings and address the public. In this background, on 27.08.2021, the complainant has credited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/through RTGS to account number provided by the accused. On the same day, his sonUmesh Basavaraj Maradi, also invested a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- by transferring the same to the account of the accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite.

¶64

6.3. About 3-4 days, thereafter accused No.1-Sagar

¶65

Bapuso Nichite came to the house of complainant and issued 10 cheques each to the complainant and his son with different dates and explained how to claim returns. After one month, complainant was able to withdraw sum of Rs.5,00,000/- through one of the cheque given by the accused. Similarly, his son withdrew Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank account of accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite. However in the next month, accused No.1-Sagar Bapuso Nichite requested the complainant and his son not to

¶66

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶67

present the remaining cheques and took them back and saying that they would issue fresh cheues. In fact he issued another cheque for sum of Rs.22,50,000/- each to the complainant and his son. However, when they were presented to the bank they were dishonored on ground of

¶68

“Account is not having sufficient Funds”.

¶69

6.4. Later he came to know that the accused

¶70

¶71

6.5. Based on the complaint, case is registered in Crime No.05/2023 of CEN Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and under Sections 21(1)(2)(3) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and investigation is taken up. Already

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10615 CRL.P No. 102145 of 2023

¶74

cases in crime No.832/2022 of Goregaon Police Station and 116/2022 of Gokak Police Station are registered against the petitioner and others for similar offences.

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation has been stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.102032/2023.

¶76

On the other hand Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that investigation conducted before the stay granted by the this Court revealed that petitioner and remaining accused are owning several accounts and having regard to the enormity of the funds involved and the people whom the petitioner and others are cheated, in the event of granting bail, there is every likelihood of petitioner absconding and also indulging in similar activities and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶77

Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and the amount involved and the number of victims, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶78