Minesh Rajnikant Maru v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 /3 17-ABA-827-16.doc Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 827 OF 2016 Minesh Rajnikant Maru ..Applicant.

Vs The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

Mr S.V. Marwadi, for the applicant.

Mr H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State.

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J.

DATE : 19TH August, 2016 P.C.

1) The applicant is apprehending arrest in CR No. I-94 of 2016 dated 1st April, 2016 registered with Bhiwandi Police Station, District Thane under section 420 and 406 of the IPC.

2) The first informant Hiten Bid has lodged the report dated 1st April, 2016 stating that he was having business transactions of sale and purchase of cloth with accused no.1 Nagendra Rai and the complainant sold the goods to the accused no.1 Nagendra Rai approximately amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-. However, as he did not receive the payment towards the same, he has lodged the

2 /3 17-ABA-827-16.doc first information report contending an offence under section 420 and 406 of the IPC. In the first information report, it is also stated that the applicant is the partner of the said Nagendra Rai.

3) The Investigating Officer Shri Ajaykumar Vitthalrao Wadhawe has filed a brief affidavit dated 19th July, 2016. It appears from the papers of investigation that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that, the applicant herein is the proprietor of Shivam Textiles and was also having certain commercial transaction with the complainant. It is further revealed that the applicant is not a partner of the said accused no.1 Nagendra Rai. The accused no.1 was arrested by the police and was thoroughly interrogated when he was in custody. It appears from the record that the facts leading to the present crime and the other relevant aspects pertaining to the investigation have been unearthed by the police during the course of the investigation. The police have also seized certain documents pertaining to the commercial transaction

3 /3 17-ABA-827-16.doc between the accused persons and the alleged victim. According to me, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for the further investigation. 4) In view of the above, the interim relief granted by an Order dated 6th May, 2016 is hereby confirmed. 5) The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)