Ravindra Vyankatswami Indapure vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6227 Bom

                                         1                         27) aba1303-17.doc

sas
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                 CRIMINAL APPELL ATE JURISDICTION

          ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1303 OF 2017
                             WITH
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.733 OF 2017


      Prashant Anil Patil                                   ..Applicant.
                  V/s.
      The State of Maharashtra                              ..Respondent.
                  AND
      Ravindra Vyankatswami Indapure                        ..Intervenor.


      Mr.Sarang S.Aradhye for the Applicant.

      Mr.S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

      Mr.P.G.Sarda for the Intervenor.

                                        CORAM : T.V.NAL AWADE, J.

                                        DATED :       16 AUGUST 2017

      P.C.:-

This application is filed for bail in C.R. No.288/2017 for

the offence punishable under sections 420, 417 read with 34 of the

IPC registered with Jail Road police station, Solapur. Both the sides

are heard. Papers of investigation arre made available for perusal.

2 27) aba1303-17.doc

2. Allegations are made against Prashant Patil by informant

Ravindra Indapure that the present Applicant had made false

representation to him of a project of textile park which would yield

good returns if investment is made in the project. The allegations are

made that the directors of the said project Sharad Kishore Mergu and

the present Applicant Prashant Palli visited the house of the

complainant and made him to believe in them and make investment

in the said project and promise was made to him allot four units in

the said project. Due to such representation, the complainant gave

amounts to Prashant Palli and Sharad Mergu. The particulars of

making payment are given in the F.I.R. The payments were made in

the year 2009.

3. It is the contention of the complainant that as nothing

was informed to him after making investment, he contacted the

present Applicant to show some progress. It is contended that the

Applicant then asked the complainant to see that there are other

investors so that the project can be started immediately. Upon that

he took other persons also and those persons namely, Sudhir and

Ramkrishna also made similar investments. Thus, total amount

3 27) aba1303-17.doc

Rs.60 lakhs was taken by the Applicant and Sharad Mergu.

4. It is the contended that in the year 2011 due to the

insistence of the complainant record was created in respect of the

aforesaid amounts and promise was made to either return the

amount or to make him a member of the said project. Even after

giving such an undertaking, project was not started and the

Applicant and other directors started avoiding the complainant.

Due to that and after making inquiry, the complainant realised that

he was deceived and he approached the police.

5. It appears that for getting the benefit of government

scheme of subsidy and financial help, some project was prepared but

the present Applicant and other director did not complete the project

and there is no record of what has happened to the investment

amount.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the

complainant was involved in illegal money lending business and

reports were given against him in the month of March, 2017 and so

4 27) aba1303-17.doc

false allegations are made against the Applicant. This submission is

not at all acceptable. The fact remains that an amount of Rs.60 lakhs

is given by some persons to the Applicant and other directors and

there is record of giving of this amount in the form of an undertaking

given by the Applicant and others. As there is nothing on record of

the aforesaid project to show that there is really any scheme and the

amount was really invested, prima facie case is made out against the

Applicant and Sharad Mergu. Such cases are increasing and custodial

interrogation is must in such cases and only after custodial

interrogation police can find out the other accused and the property

can be recovered. Such money can be treated as stolen property

under section 410 of the IPC. This Court holds that this is not a fit

case for grant of relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the Applicant.

The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Interim anticipatory

bail granted earlier stands vacated. The application for intervention

is allowed.

(T.V.NAL AWADE, J.)