Ajay Amrut Bari v. State Of Maharashtra

Diksha Rane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date:

2022.12.15 18:06:18 +0530 DIKSHA DINESH RANE ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3473/2022 AJAY AMRUT BARI ..APPLICANT VS.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT ------------ Dr. S. S. Karmarkar i/b. Karmarkar & Associates for the applicant.

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State.

Mr. Rathod, API, Vanrai Police Station.

------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2022.

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP.

2.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the C.R.No.570/2022 registered with Vanrai Police Station on October 6, 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'the IPC' for short). 1/3

3.

The applicant had approached the trial Court for prearrest bail. The order of the trial Court is not get uploaded. However, from the operative part at page 26, it is seen that the application is rejected.

4.

The Investigating Officer is present. I have perused the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR is dated October 6, 2022 registered at the instance of Chetan Krishna Jaygade. It is alleged that the original accused-Navinsing Mansing Gorakha had given a false advertisement that he would give houses to poor people at Kankia, Andheri (East), Chakala worth Rs.12 lakhs through his firms. The applicant along with the two others impersonated themselves as the officers of the MMRDA and handed over the documents pertaining to the flats to the complainant which were later found to be bogus. The applicant was not officer of the MMRDA but impersonated him as such. There are other gullible investors from whom the accused had collected the amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. A cheque which was issued by the main accused Navinsing Mansing Gorakha was dishonoured. Prima facie, it is seen that the applicant was 2/3

actively involved in the alleged offence as he projected himself as an officer of the MMRDA. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is rejected and disposed of.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 3/3