SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
Robert Gragery D’Souza - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Naigaon Police Station/EOW, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai Virar Police Commissionerate) – Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 235 of 2026
Decided On : 11-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh Butala i/b Regina Correia.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi a/w Ms. P. Chadha, Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP.

Trustee of public charitable trust entrusted with property sale and proceeds handling acts as 'agent' under IPC Section 409 for criminal breach of trust, justifying 90-day default bail detention if prima facie misappropriation shown.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Proviso - Default/statutory bail - Right is indefeasible if charge-sheet not filed within stipulated period; flows from Article 21 - Magistrate must prima facie examine applicability of invoked sections to determine detention period (60/90 days), cannot mechanically accept prosecution's invocation - IPC Section 409 (aggravated criminal breach of trust by specified persons including agent) attracted where trustee/secretary of public charitable trust entrusted with obtaining sanction for property sale, allegedly sells larger area with false statements/documents, receives/diverts advance proceeds by forging signatures instead of depositing in trust account - Trustee holds legal ownership of property under Trusts Act but entrusted with specific task (sanction, sale, receipt of proceeds) creates agency capacity for entrustment under Section 409, satisfying ingredients of dishonest misappropriation. (Paras 13-30)

(B) IPC Sections 405, 409 - Criminal breach of trust - Ingredients: entrustment/dominion over property of another, dishonest misappropriation/use in violation of law/contract - Section 409 applies to public servant, banker, merchant, agent etc.; entrustment arises 'in any manner whatsoever', expressly/impliedly; obligation to account honestly - Applies even if initial receipt proper/innocent if later breached - Trustee not agent of trust/beneficiaries generally but qua specific duties (e.g., handling sale proceeds) holds dominion creating breach liability. (Paras 16-29)

Facts of the case:
Public charitable trust formed for shelter/education of orphans. Petitioner appointed secretary entrusted responsibility to obtain sanction from charity authority for sale of part trust land. Allegedly applied for entire land/area with false statements/documents, obtained sanction, received substantial advance, opened new bank account forging trustees' signatures, credited/diverted amount to own entity. FIR registered for cheating/forgery offences, later added criminal breach by trustee. Detained at airport, remanded; after 60 days, default bail application rejected holding Section 409 invoked extending period to 90 days. Petitioner files writ challenging rejection as mechanical, contending no agency capacity.

Findings of Court:
Impugned rejection upheld; prima facie Section 409 attracted justifying 90-day period; no statutory bail entitlement.

Issues: Whether Magistrate must scrutinize prima facie ingredients/applicability of Section 409 before applying 90-day detention; whether trustee/secretary qualifies as 'agent' for entrustment under Section 409 given vesting of property.

Ratio Decidendi: Sections invoked in FIR/remand reports not conclusive; Magistrate duty-bound to assess prima facie offence for bail entitlement - Trustee's entrustment for property sale/receipt of proceeds imposes agency-like duty to account, enabling Section 409 if breached; mechanical rejection impermissible but here offence made out.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of forgery, cheating, breach in trust property sale. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention: trustee not 'agent' under section 409 ipc. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. magistrate must prima facie verify offences for statutory bail. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. entrustment for s409 arises in any manner whatsoever. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. trustee holds legal ownership, not agency over trust property. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. 'agent' in s409 broadly covers entrusted business capacities. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
7. trustee's sale task constitutes s409 agency entrustment. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS, 2023) (Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner assails the legality and correctness of an order dated 09th December, 2025 passed by the learned Magistrate, Vasai whereby an application preferred by the petitioner to enlarge him on default bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code, 1973’), came to be rejected.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under:-

3.1 Shejar Chhaya Trust, Devdal (the trust) is a public charitable trust. The Trust was formed in the year, 1984 with the object of providing shelter and education to orphan children. On 28th December, 2019, the petitioner became the Secretary of the Trust.

3.2 Father Francis Peter Gonsalves, the Chief Trustee of the Trust had entrusted the responsibility of obtaining the sanction of the Charity Commissioner for the sale of trust property i.e. 21 Guntha land out of 40 Guntha land, situated at Survey No. 63, Hissa No. A/1.

3.3 The prosecution alleges on 14th December, 2020, the petitioner filed an application before the Charity Commissioner to sale the entire Survey No. 63, A/1 admeasuring 40 Guntha and another Survey No. 16 admeasuring 76.60 Guntha. False statements were made in the said application. On the basis of such false statements and false documents on 24th September, 2023, the petitioner obtained the sanction of the Charity Commissioner for the sale of 116.60 Guntha land of the Trust in favour of the R. K. Developers for a consideration of Rs. 6,21,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty One Lakhs). Out of the said amount, on 22nd July 2021, the petitioner obtained an advance consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs) and instead of depositing the said amount in the account of the Trust maintained with the Federal Bank, Vasai Road Branch, the petitioner opened a new account with Basin Catholic Co- operative Bank by forging the signatures of the chief trustees and other trustees and got credited the said amount in the said account. Subsequently, the petitioner transferred the said amount to the account of petitioner’s D’Souza Education and Charitable Trust and thereby committed offences of cheating and forgery.

3.4 F.I.R was registered on 27th December, 2024, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468, 465 and 420 of the Penal Code. Subsequently, the offence punishable under Sections 409 came to be added.

3.5 The petitioner was detained on 06th October, 2024 by the Immigration Officers at IGI Airport, New Delhi. The petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi on 07th October, 2025 and transit remand was obtained. The petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate at Vasai on 10th October, 2025, and was remanded to Police custody.

3.6 On 09th December, 2025, the petitioner preferred an application before the learned Magistrate seeking his release under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code. It was inter alia asserted that, the petitioner has been arraigned for the offences punishable under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top