Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Veerath Gopalan Nair – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Yende, learned Advocate for Applicants and Mr.Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking Regular Bail in connection with C.R. No.467 of 2021 registered with Kolsewadi Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (for short “MPID Act”). Applicant No.1 before me namely Veerath Gopalan Nair aged 80 years is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the crime and incarcerated since 05.10.2021 i.e. 3 years 4 months and 27 days. Applicant No.2 aged 76 years i.e. wife of Applicant No.1 and is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the crime and incarcerated since 07.06.2022 i.e. 2 years 8 months and 25 days.
3. Briefly stated role of Applicant No.1 as per prosecution case is that he is a partner in VGN Jewellers and a Director in VGN Jewellery Private Limited and VGN Chit and Finance Company Private Limited. It is alleged that through these Companies Accused floated various investment schemes and lured investors by offering them gold jeweller
The court held that the age and health of the applicants, along with the nature of the allegations, justified granting bail despite serious charges under economic offences.
Criminal machinery cannot be applied to disputes primarily of a civil nature without clear evidence of fraud or deception at inception.
The court held that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the necessity of fraudulent intent from inception.
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 405/406/420 IPC are prima facie present in the case, as there was evidence of entrustment of the jewelry, dishonest intention at the time of the transac....
Insufficient evidence of dishonest intent or misappropriation negates criminal charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving criminal intent in such transactions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
