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

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHANTARAM ASHOK DEVTARSE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
ABA 109/2021



ABA109-21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 109 OF 2021

Shantaram s/o Ashok Devtarse

Age 34 years, Occu: Business & Agri.

R/o Kanher Vasti, Sonai, Tq. Newasa,

District Ahmednagar

...

Applicant

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

Throgh Police Inspector

Sonai Police Station, Sonai,

District Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar

...

Respondents

2.

The Superintendent of Police,

Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar

Mr. S. J. Salunke h/for Mr. M. S. Taur, Advocate for the applicant,

Mrs V. S. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the State.

CORAM

: V. G. BISHT, J.

RESERVED ON

: 17th August, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON

: 24th August, 2021.

ORDER:

1.

This is an application under section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the applicant seeking grant of

pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 16/2021 registered with

Sonai Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable

under Sections 406, 409, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

under section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of

Depositors(in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

Page 1 of 5

ABA109-21

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that at the instance and

persuasion of the present applicant, the informant, his family members,

relatives and friends in all invested Rs.6,81,28,983/- with Ujwal Agro

Multistate Cooperative Society, Mauli Multistate Credit Cooperative

Society and other societies during the period from 2017 to 2019. The

present applicant and other accused had promised the informant and

other investors that they will get the amount twice in a year and also

other financial benefits. However, the amount was not repaid and rather

they found themselves to be cheated.

3.

Mr. S. J. Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant, submits

that the present applicant is neither a Director nor member or in any

capacity working on behalf of Ujwal Agro Multistate Cooperative Society

or any other societies as alleged in the first information report.

According to the learned counsel, the applicant himself has deposited

total amount to the tune of Rs.35,70,000/- in Ujwal Agro Multistate

Cooperative Society, Mauli Multistate Credit Cooperative Society under

various schemes in the name of his brother, father, his wife, and in his

own name relying on the sweet words of the Chairman and Directors

of the said Societies. The learned counsel also submits that the

applicant was also promised by the Chairman and Directors of the said

Societies that he would get double amount after the prescribed period.

Out of Rs.35,70,000/- an amount of Rs. 22,08,122/- is still remained

to be recovered from those Societies. The applicant himself is a victim

who has lost the said amount. The learned counsel then invited my

Page 2 of 5

ABA109-21

attention to various deposits made by the applicant and his family

members and would submit that this is a fit case where the applicant

should be given benefit of pre-arrest bail.

4.

Mrs V. S. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, would

submit that the present applicant was working as an Agent of the

societies in question and was handsomely rewarded by way of

commission. It was the applicant who induced the informant and other

investors and showed a rosy picture and thus not only he alongwith

others committed criminal breach of trust but also cheated on the

various investors. The learned counsel then invited my attention to

the statements of witnesses and also the statement prepared of

showing commissions received by the applicant. According to the

learned A.P.P., th

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top