Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 286 OF 2024 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3070 OF 2023 Sanket Subhash Sawant ...Applicant In the matter between Alok Ranjan ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, a/w Sejal Nalawde and Pratik Malogi, for the Applicant.

Mr. A. A. Naik, APP for the State.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED: 18^th FEBRUARY, 2025 ORDER:-

1. The applicant - first informant has preferred this application seeking permission to withdraw the amount of Rs.18,17,050/- deposited by the applicant in ABA/3070/2023 in this Court, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 6^th November, 2023.

2. The first informant lodged a report with the allegations that the accused - the applicant in ABA/3070/2023 had SANTOSH allegedly induced him to part with an amount of Rs.18,17,050/-

SUBHASH KULKARNI by making a false representation that he would procure/import Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.02.18

19:24:09 +0530 the medicines from Tajikistan. The accused had allegedly given

9 certificates to show that the medicines required by the first informant were registered with Tajikistan authorities. Pursuant to the said report, crime was registered at CR No.353 of 2022 at Nagpada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

3. Apprehending arrest the accused approached this Court by filing application for pre-arrest bail. On 6th November, 2023 this Court was persuaded to grant interim bail to the accused observing, inter alia, as under:

“4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,17,050/- over the receipt of which there is no dispute. However, there is no material to show that the applicant had allegedly forged the certificates.

5. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, the learned counsel submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the first informant. He submits that if the applicant is willing to deposit the amount of Rs.18,17,050/-, he has no objection to grant interim protection.

6. Prima facie, it appears that the transaction is one of failure to provide the services which were promised by the applicant. Whether the intention of the applicant was dishonest since inception of the transaction is a matter for consideration. As the applicant has shown willingness to deposit the amount of Rs.18,17,050/- and the first informant is not averse to the said proposition, I am inclined to grant interim protection.

7. As undertaken, the applicant shall deposit the amount of Rs.18,17,050/- in this Court by 30^th November, 2023.”

4. By a further order dated 18^th December, 2023, the aforesaid order of interim bail was made absolute.

5. The first informant has preferred this application asserting that the accused had volunteered to deposit the said amount of Rs.18,17,050/- and, therefore, the first informant be permitted to withdraw the same.

6. The accused resisted the application by filing an affidavit- in-reply. It was, inter alia, contended that the transaction between the parties was of civil nature and the first informant, in his endeavour to extract money from the accused, lodged a false FIR by giving a criminal flavour to the civil transaction between the parties. In these circumstances, the accused was constrained to deposit the said amount. However, the entitlement of the first informant to the said amount is a matter for adjudication. Therefore, the said amount may not be permitted to be withdrawn.

7. Initially, the parties made an endeavour to amicably resolve the dispute. Since the negotiations did not materialize, the mater was heard.

8. The learned Counsel for the first informant submitted that the fact that the amount of Rs.18,17,050/- was paid by the first informant to the accused is indisputable. In fact, during the course of investigation the accused had not only acknowledged the recei