Sachin Jagannath Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1873 OF 2018 Sachin Jagannath Patil ..Applicant v/s.

The State of Maharashtra .

..Respondents Mr. Kuldeep Patil for the Applicant.

Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for the State.

Mr. Yogesh Gaikwad, PSI, Poynad Police Station present. CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.

DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2018.

P.C.

1.

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the aforesaid applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.I 0062 of 2018 registered with Poynad Police Station, District Raigad,. for offences under Section 420 of IPC.

2.

Heard Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Dabholkar, the learned APP for the State. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for

the respective parties .

3.

The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the first information report lodged by one Dilip Desavale. A perusal of the FIR prima facie reveals that the applicant herein had taken sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from the first informant on assurance that he would provide job to his son-in-law- Amol Jaisingh Pawar. 4.

The first informant lateron learnt that he was cheated by the applicant. When confronted, the applicant issued to him a cheque of Rs.5 lakhs. However, the said cheque was dishonoured. The first informant had therefore lodged FIR against the present applicant for cheating.

5.

The material on record prima facie reveals that the applicant is involved in cheating the first informant. The learned APP submits that the applicant is also involved in similar case being Crime No. 70 of 2018. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already compounded the said case by paying amount to

the first informant. The material on record prima facie reveals that the applicant is involved in committing similar crimes. The matter needs to be investigated thoroughly to ascertain whether the applicant has cheated other innocent job-seekers. 6.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my considered view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Prasanna Pradeep Salgaonkar Hence the application is dismissed.

Prasanna Pradeep Salgaonkar Date: 2018.10.09 18:26:06 +0530 (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)