Uttam Damodar Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6336 Bom

 Shridhar Sutar                            1                                 35-aba-1371.17.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1371 OF 2017


 Uttam Damodar Jadhav                                   ...  Applicant
      Versus
 The State of Maharashtra                               ... Respondent

                                 .....
 Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe for the Applicant.
 Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State.
                                 .....


                                CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J.

                                 DATE    : 16th AUGUST, 2017

 P. C. :

1. This Application is filed for anticipatory bail in C.R.No. 103

of 2017 registered with Ambad Police Station, Dist. Nashik, for

offences punishable under sections 406 and 506 read with 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the MPID

Act.

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. The papers of investigation are made available for perusal of

this Court.

                                                                              1 of 4





  Shridhar Sutar                             2                                  35-aba-1371.17.doc

4. The complainant - Dilip Pagare has made allegations against

the present applicant and five other persons that by making false

representation they invited public to make investment in Arambh

Agri and Cattle Private Limited Company, and by

misappropriating the amount of investors, they have committed

aforesaid offences. The allegations are made that the complainant

was contacted by applicant as he was working at Nashik.

Complainant collected some investors. As per the record, in 2015,

the money was to be returned with dividend to the persons who

had made investment, but by giving one or other excuse, the

money was not given. The cheques were given, but the same

bounced. The complainant had invested amount of 30 persons,

which is more than Rs. 15 lakhs and even after the period given

was over, the amount was not returned. The submission was made

that the complaint was also cheated.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

is also similar victim and he had also invested some amount.

However, the submissions made show that the present applicant

had collected an amount of Rs. 4 to 5 crores. If the Applicant had

2 of 4

Shridhar Sutar 3 35-aba-1371.17.doc

received commission, then it was necessary for him to show the

record of commission. The allegations are made that the

commission was not paid by cheque or by account transfer and

immediately after collecting the money, commission was paid in

cash. This circumstance ought to have created suspicion in the

mind of the present applicant. There is allegation against the

present applicant that he had collected money from 400 to 500

persons.

6. In cases like the present one, the records need to be

collected and information can be collected only after custodial

interrogation. It can be seen that the present applicant was

working at Nashik and he has knowledge of the transactions

which were made at Nashik. Due to such representations poor

persons get attracted and they are deceived. Such cases cannot be

taken lightly. This Court holds that discretion cannot be given in

favour of the present applicant. It is made clear that it is open to

the investigating agency to go against the first informant also if he

is found involved in deceiving the public.

                                                                                     3 of 4





  Shridhar Sutar                                 4                                  35-aba-1371.17.doc

7. In the result, the application stands rejected. Ad-interim

relief already granted, is vacated.

(T. V. NALAWADE, J.)

4 of 4