Ankit Rajesh Chaurasiya v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2022.12.20 19:32:10 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3503 OF 2022 Ankit Rajesh Chaurasiya ..Applicant vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Senior Inspector of Police ..Respondents Mr. Yogesh Joshi a/w Mr. Harshad Joshi, i/b YRJ Legal for applicant.

Mr. S.V. Gawand, APP for respondent-State.

PI- Mr. J.N. Mate, MHB Police Station is present. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2022 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record the order passed by the Sessions Court. The same is taken on record.

3.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of C.R. No.1054 of 2022 dated 21/10/2022 registered with M.H.B. Colony Police Station for the offence punishable

under sections 420, 408 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4.

The applicant was working in a private limited company called 'Healthmeter Services Pvt. Ltd.' as a team leader. Briefly stated, it is alleged that the applicant has received monies in the form of unpaid bills from the subcontractors of the company to the extent of Rs.49,67,791/-. I have gone through the statement of one of the witness dated 03/12/2022. In the said statement, various sums which were transferred to the account of the witness from the account of the company are mentioned. Thereafter the said sums were transferred to the google pay account of the applicant. There is a statement of another witness which has been recorded alleging similar modus operandi. 5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has attended the Investigating Officer as many as on 18 dates. According to him, the entire case is based on documents and therefore custody is not required. He submits that the applicant is co-operating.

6.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations and

the materials collected, which prima facie indicates that the applicant is in receipt of substantial sums of money by way of kick backs, this is not a case where the application deserves to be granted per-arrest bail. The application is rejected.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)