903-ABA81613-22.DOC

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1613 OF 2022

Prasannakumar Nanaji Jagdale

...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

…Respondent

Mr. Harshad Palwe, for the Applicant.

Mr. Y. Y. Dabake, APP for the State.

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, for the Intervenor.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED :

21^st JUNE, 2022

ORDER:-

1.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in CR No.97 of

2022, registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik, for the

offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

2.

The indictment against the applicant is that the applicant

had known Dr. Smita Shivarkar, the 昀椀rst informant. The

applicant induced the 昀椀rst informant to repose con昀椀dence in

him. The applicant represented that he was dealing in the stock

market as a share-broker. The applicant made the 昀椀rst

informant to initially deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, by way of

margin money and thereafter a sum of Rs.38,06,850/- on the

pretext of investing the said amounts in securities. However, the

1/4

SANTOSH

SUBHASH

KULKARNI

Digitally signed by

SANTOSH

SUBHASH

KULKARNI

Date: 2022.06.24

10:17:00 +0530

903-ABA81613-22.DOC

applicant did not invest the said amounts and instead

purchased a 昀氀at at Nashik, in his own name. The applicant

assured the 昀椀rst informant that he would later convey the 昀氀at in

her name.

3.

The 昀椀rst informant further alleged that the applicant

represented her that he would divorce his wife and solemnize

marriage with the 昀椀rst informant and also take care of her ailing

mother. Believing the representations of the applicant, her

mother and maternal aunt were also made to transfer huge

amounts in the accounts named by the applicant. Representing

that there was a pro昀椀t of about Rs.50,00,000/- in the trading of

shares, the applicant diverted a sum of Rs.19,97,644/- towards

brokerage charges. Eventually, noticing something amiss, the

昀椀rst informant obtained the statements of account, which

revealed that there was a net loss of Rs.24,51,579/-. The

applicant refused to transfer the 昀氀at and make good the amount

which the 昀椀rst informant, her mother and maternal aunt were

induced to part with.

4.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the

昀椀rst informant has suppressed material facts. Though, the fact

that the applicant purchased a 昀氀at out of the funds made

available by the 昀椀rst informant was not sought to be seriously

2/4

903-ABA81613-22.DOC

controverted, yet it was urged that the applicant had, in turn,

transferred a sum to the tune of Rs.20,50,850/- to the account

of the 昀椀rst informant and her family members. The applicant

therefore deserves an opportunity to bring all these facts to the

notice of the Investigating Of昀椀cer. The liberty of the applicant is,

therefore, required to be protected.

5.

I am not inclined to accede to the aforesaid submissions

on behalf of the applicant. The allegations in the FIR make out

a strong prima facie case of both cheating and criminal breach

of trust, in distinct context. Prima facie, it appears that the 昀椀rst

informant was made to part with a huge amount by luring her

of sumptuous return. However, the amount was not utilized for

the said stated purpose and instead the applicant allegedly

acquired a 昀氀at in his own name. There are further allegations of

repeatedly making false representations and inducing the 昀椀rst

informant and her relatives to deliver property.

6.

In the backdrop of the nature of the accusation, custodial

interrogation of the applicant seems indispensible to unearth

the fraud in all its facets and trace the amount, which the 昀椀rst

informant and her mother and maternal aunt were defrauded

with.

3/4

903-ABA81613-22.DOC

7.

Hence, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in

favour of the applicant.

The application stan