Rakhi Rajesh Mewawala vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 12384 Bom

                                                                                         2-ABA-2123-2022.doc




                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2123 OF 2022
                             Rakhi Rajesh Mewawala                                  ...Applicant
                                   Versus
                             The State of Maharashtra                               ...Respondent
                                                                     ....
                             Mr. Niteen Pradhan i/by Ms. S.D. Khot, Advocate for the Applicant.
                             Mr. Dhrutiman S. Joshi, Advocate for the First Informant/Intervenor.
                             Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
                             Mr. Shivanand Aapure, PSI, Mulund Police Station.
                                                           CORAM        :     PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

                                                           DATE         :     30th NOVEMBER, 2022.
                             PER COURT:

1. This is second application for anticipatory bail before this

Court. The previous application viz. Criminal Anticipatory Bail

Application No.187 of 2019 was rejected by this Court vide order

dated 30th January, 2019.

2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No.614 of

2018 registered with Mulund Police Station for offence punishable

under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short Digitally signed by SUNNY 'IPC') and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of SUNNY ANKUSHRAO ANKUSHRAO THOTE THOTE Date:

2022.12.01 Depositors Act, 1999 (for short MPID Act, 1999).

14:03:55 +0530

3. It is alleged that in April, 2016, the accused No.1 Rajesh

Mewawala and Shri Jayesh Thakkar had visited the residence of

the complainant. Shri Mewawala had stated that he has two

Sunny Thote 1 of 8 2-ABA-2123-2022.doc

concerns namely Fountain Spring Water Pvt. Ltd. and Fountain Dry

Fruit stores through which he is conducting business. Thereafter he

had frequently visited the residence of complainant. In April, 2016

Mr. Mewawala stated that he is accepting the money on interest

basis and if the complainant invest the amount he would provide

interest of 18% p.a. Considering the status of Shri Mewawala, the

complainant believed his representation. On 29th April, 2016,

Mr.Mewawala, his wife Rakhi and daughter Masumi had visited the

house of complainant. All of them represented that in the event the

complainant invests the money in their concern 18% interest would

be provided to the complainant. It was also stated that Mr. Rajesh

Mewawala and his wife Rakhi are Directors of Fountain Spring

Water Private Limited. They further represented that if the

complainant invested an amount of Rs.12.5 lakhs in their concern

by providing interest of 18% p.a. she would get an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- in April, 2017. Being influenced by the

representations, the complainant, her relative and friend parted an

amount of Rs.12.5 Lakh to Rajesh Mewawala and Masumi

Thereafter, the accused frequently visited the house of the

complainant. On enquiry about the returns receivable by the

complainant she was informed that same would be provided to her

in April, 2018 with interest and she would been titled to receive an

Sunny Thote 2 of 8 2-ABA-2123-2022.doc

amount of Rs.18 Lakhs. The complainant demanded her amount it

was not returned to her. Thereafter, said persons have refused to

contact the complainant. Complainant then realized that several

other persons were also duped by the accused to the tune of

Rs.3,04,50,000/- Hence, the First Information Report was lodged

on20th December, 2018.

4. The applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail

before Sessions Court which was rejected vide order dated 19 th

January, 2019. Thereafter, the applicant and her husband preferred

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 187 of 2019 before this Court.

The said application was rejected by order dated 30 th January,

2019. The application for anticipatory bail preferred by applicant's

daughter Masumi was allowed by same order.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order rejecting

application for anticipatory bail by this Court, the applicant and her

husband Rajesh Mewawala approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court

by preferring SLP (Cri.) No. 4959 of 2019. The said Special Leave

Petition was disposed off by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order

dated 26th July, 2022, by passing the following order;

"Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners wishes to

withdraw the present Special Leave Petitions without prejudice

Sunny Thote 3 of 8 2-ABA-2123-2022.doc

to the rights of the petitioners in appropriate proceedings in

accordance with law.

Allowed as prayed for.

The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly, dismissed as

withdrawn.

In view of withdrawal of the present Special Leave

Petitions, the contempt petition is, accordingly, closed."

6. Vide order dated 4th August, 2022 the co-ordinate bench

had directed that this application be listed before me in view of the

previous order dated 30th January, 2019.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Pradhan appearing for the applicant

submitted that the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court has

been withdrawn. During the pendency of the said petition, interim

protection was granted to the petitioner by the Apex Court. The

Special Leave Petition is allowed to be withdrawn without

prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appropriate proceedings

in accordance with law. The husband of the petitioner has been

arrested. He has been granted bail. On completing investigation

charge-sheet is filed. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not

necessary. There is change in circumstance to entertain this

application for anticipatory bail. While granting bail to the

applicant's husband Rajesh Mewawala, the MPID Special Court in

Sunny Thote 4 of 8 2-ABA-2123-2022.doc

paragraph 6 of the order dated 1st November, 2022 has observed

that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is submitted.

The said accused is in custody from 12 th August, 2022. He was in

PCR till 19th August, 2022. He was interrogated. The incident of

investment is of April-2017 and crime was registered on 12 th

February, 2018. Further custodial detention for indefinite period is

not necessary. Mr. Pradhan further submitted that the husband of

the applicant and others have preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.

4714 of 2019 for quashing the proceedings. Notice has been issued

in the said petition. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mulund

Police Station. Learned counsel relied upon Judgment of the Apex

Court in the Case of Siddharth V/s Uttar Pradesh and Another

(2022) 1 SCC 676. Learned counsel adverted to the observations

in paragraph 10 of the said decision, wherein it is observed that

personal liberty is an important aspect of constitutional mandate.

The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when

custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime

or where there is possible of influencing the witnesses and accused

may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is

lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction

must be made between existence of the power to arrest and the

justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause

Sunny Thote 5 of 8 2-ABA-2123-2022.doc

incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If

the investigating officer has no reason to believe that the accused

will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout co-

operated with the investigation, why there should be a compulsion

on the officer to arrest the accused. The applicants husband gave

complaint to Malabar Hill Police Station regarding misuse of

cheques on 23rd September, 2018. He also filed private complaint

in the Court. The complainant and others approached Mulund

Police Station. Statement of applicants husband was recorded.

Mulund Police Station has no jurisdiction.

8. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is not available

for investigation after the registration of First Information Report

(for short 'FIR'). Amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/-(Two Crores) was

transferred to the account of applicant. Custodial interrogation of

applicant is necessary. Previous application for anticipatory bail

was rejected by this Court. The said order was challenged before

the Apex Court. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the

Apex Court was withdrawn by the applicant. The arrest of

applicants husband is not change in circumstance. Learned

Advocate for the first informant adopted submissions of learned

APP. It is submitted that the applicant is avoiding arrest. The FIR

Sunny Thote 6 of 8 2-ABA-2123-2022.doc

was registered in 2018. Charge-sheet is filed only against arrested

accused. Mulund Police station had jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint.

9. C.R. No.614 of 2018 has been registered on 28 th

December, 2018 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of

IPC. The applicant had preferred an application for anticipatory

bail before the Court of Sessions which was rejected vide order

dated 19th January, 2019. Subsequently, Anticipatory Bail

Application No.187 of 2019 was preferred before this Court which

has been rejected vide order dated 30 th January, 2019. While

rejecting the said application it was observed that the FIR depicts

role played by the applicant. The complainant and others were

induced to part the amount. The case is under investigation. The

amount involved is Rs.3,04,50,000/- (Three crores four lakhs fifty

thousand), major role is played by the applicant and her husband.

The aforesaid order was challenged by preferring Special Leave

Petition and as indicated above the counsel for the applicant and

the co-accused sought permission to withdraw the Special Leave

Petition without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners therein

inappropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The Special

Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The applicant now

Sunny Thote 7 of 8 2-ABA-2123-2022.doc

contends that in view of withdrawal of Special Leave and saving of

right to initiate proceedings, the present application has been

preferred. It is pertinent to note that previous application for

anticipatory bail was rejected on merits. The Special Leave Petition

challenging the said order has been withdrawn. On the grounds

urged by the applicant, I do not find any reason to again entertain

the fresh application for anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation

of the applicant is necessary. The role played by the applicant has

been considered while rejecting the previous application. The FIR

has been registered in 2018. The applicant is evading arrest and

scuttling investigation. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain

the present application. Hence, I pass the following order.

ORDER

Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.2123 of 2022 is

rejected.

                                                 (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)




Sunny Thote                           8 of 8