Suresh Bhupal Redekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1/2 7-aba-3271-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3271 OF 2022 Suresh B. Redekar ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

...Respondents.

Mr. Vijay Killedar for the Applicant.

Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent/State

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

09.12.2022.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.

2.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.329 of 2022 registered at Jaisingpur Police Station, Kolhapur for the ofences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).

3.

According to the prosecution, the present applicant along with other co-accused with intention to cheat the complainant and witness persuaded them to invest in M.S. Global Company on the assurance that on completion of one year, they would get double amount. Accordingly, the complainant and witness invested the amount of Rs.24,01,840/-. According to the prosecution, the applicant and other co-accused misappropriated the entire Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2

2/2 7-aba-3271-22.doc amount invested by the complainant and the witness. 4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State. 5.

The learned APP submits that the applicant is accused in one more crime of similar nature, i.e., C.R. No. 368 of 2022 registered at Vishrambaugh police station. The learned APP has placed on record a report of the investigating ofcer dated 24 November 2022 to that efect.

6.

The learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the applicant is not accused in the said crime. 7.

Perusal of said report reveals that the name of present applicant is not there in the FIR. However, during the course of investigation, witnesses have stated that the present applicant has induced them to make investment of Rs.15,49,000/-. 8.

Considering the nature of ofence and as the applicant is involved in one more crime of similar nature, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2