High Court
Legal Reasoning
936-ba-1599-2024.odt(7)creating the false documents. These documents were affecting therights of the real and genuine businessmen. The serious offence ofcheating and forgery is prima facie made out against the applicant.Considering the modus operandi of the applicant, it would be harmfulto grant him bail because there may be another scapegoat falling tohis sweet words. He is an influential person and financially strong.The possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses cannot beruled out. For the above reason, the application stands dismissed. 7.Criminal Application No.4138 of 2024 stands disposed of. (S.G. MEHARE, J.)Mujaheed//
Arguments
936-ba-1599-2024.odt(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 1599 OF 2024WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4138 OF 2024 IN BA/1599/2024Amit Jagadish KhattarVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gore Ravindra VitthalAPP for Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali S. ChoudhariAdvocate for Complainant : Mr. Ravindra B. Ade... CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2024PER COURT :-1.The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.546 of 2023registered with S.B. Jalna Police Station, District Jalna for the offencespunishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of theMaharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in FinancialEstablishment) Act, 1999 (‘MPID Act’ for short). 2.The prosecution case in brief is that the applicant wasengaged in business. He has also the country and foreign liquor shop.When the complainant met him, he told him that they have variousliquor licences in the name of his son and daughter-in-law, for sale.He would arrange to sell him at a cheap rate. The complainantdenied to accept his offer, but he lured the complainant that there is a 936-ba-1599-2024.odt(2)huge profit in the liquor business. He assured him that he may makeRs.10 to 15 lac profit. His son has business under the name ofKrushna Associates and Developers at Chhattrapati Sambhajinagar.He went there to meet him. His son, daughter-in-law and wife werepresent in the office. He told him that one Suruchi Wines Nagpur andS.A. Shaikh and Company Bhor have sold them the liquor shoplicences and they have agreement with them. They have shown theagreement of transfer/sale of the liquor licence. They calledsomebody to gain his confidence. They were keeping the speaker ofthe mobile phone on and talking about the licences. The person fromthe other side was also replying him positively to make thecomplainant believe that he was dealing in such transfers. Theapplicant demanded 5% commission on each transaction. However,he showed the sympathy towards the applicant being from the villageand said to him that he would charge 1% commission from him.Thereafter, they started meeting. The applicant has received a hugeamount in Crores for transfer of the liquor shop licence. The amountof Rs.1,25,000/- were paid to the applicant through RTGS. He hasreceived the total amount of Rs.6,30,00,000/-. However, afterreceiving the money, he started avoiding the complainant. In the duecourse, it was transpired that the so-called licence holder of theSuruchi Wines Nagpur and S.A. Shaikh and Company Bhor wereimpersonated and not real. Since the applicant did not keep his 936-ba-1599-2024.odt(3)promise, he started demanding him money. So, he sent him Rs.9 lacto his bank. He also asked the middle man to ask the applicant to paythe money. At that time, co-accused Ajay Rathod threatened him thatif he would go to him, he would broke his hands and legs throughgoons. On the above report, the FIR was registered. The applicantwas arrested on 06.02.2024. Nothing is recovered from the applicant.3.Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently arguedthat no offence of MPID is made out. It was a contract and out of thecontract, the money was paid. He also argued that it is just aviolation of terms of the contract. Hence, it cannot be said that it wasnot the intention to cheat the complainant. The family members ofthe applicant were never the part of the transactions. Therefore,Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code would also not apply. Theinformant is trying to convert a civil dispute as a criminal one torecover the money of commercial transaction. The first informant hasalready initiated 16 proceeding under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act. The allegations against him are vague and baseless.The applicant applied before the District Collector, Jalna for insertingthe name of the complainant to the extent of 25% share in countryliquor shop at Hasnabad, Bhokardhan. It was a licence in joint namewith his wife. However, the Collector permanently cancelled thatlicence by an appropriate order. The appeal is tenable against thatorder. The FIR was also registered against the applicant for harassing 936-ba-1599-2024.odt(4)his family members. He has already returned Rs.18 lac to him. Theapplicant’s mother has deposited Rs. 27 lac with the Court as per theorder of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in her application for anticipatorybail. The FIR is delayed by more than a year. He also initiatedproceeding for inserting his name in the liquor licence owned by theapplicant. He lodged this report only for harassing him and his familymembers. He is a well respected person having good social stand inthe society and has no criminal antecedents. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation and the trial. No case is made out assuch against him. His custodial interrogation is not essential. Co-accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been released on bail by the Hon’bleSupreme Court. However, he did not claim bail on parity. He alsoargued that he is ready to abide the conditions imposed upon him, ifhe was enlarged on bail. He prayed to allow the application. 4.Learned APP for the State has strongly opposed theapplication. He would submit that it was a systematic cheating. Thefake persons were stand to win over the confidence of the applicant.The so-called agreements executed for the liquor shop at Hon wastotally false and the signatories to the documents were also false. Thetrue licence holders have stated before the Court that they never hadany agreement of sale with the applicant or the complainant throughthe applicant. He had knowledge that his licence at Hasnabad was inquestion, even then he falsely made an application to add the 936-ba-1599-2024.odt(5)complainant as a partner for 25% in the shop. The conduct of theapplicant is material. He has cheated the complainant for a hugeamount of more than Rs.6,30,00,000/- and from time to time he wasreceiving the money knowing that he could not fulfill his promise.Since, he did not return what he had promised against the receipt ofthe money, the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ismade out. When the talks were going on, his family members and so-called fake licence holders were either present or talking to theapplicant on telephone. It is a systematic plan to cheat thecomplainant and put him to the huge financial loss. His conduct itselfshows that, what reputation he had in the society. He is a rich manbut has no good intention. He was exploiting his richness to cheat thepeople. In such a case, though the charge sheet is filed, the applicantmay not be granted bail, because he is an influential person. He maycause danger to the life of the complainant or his family, because hehas already threatened him to broke his hands and legs with the helpof goons. Simultaneous criminal proceeding is not barred. Therecovery proceeding is at its place. Therefore, the proceedings filed bythe applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Actwould not litigate the circumstances to release the applicant on bail.He is not a man to be believed. He was not bonafide. Creating suchfalse documents is a serious offence of forgery against the true licence 936-ba-1599-2024.odt(6)holders. Such an act is harmful to the State Excise Department.Therefore, he may not be granted bail. 5.Learned counsel for the complainant has advanced thesimilar arguments. In addition thereto, he would submit that theearlier bail application filed before charge sheet has been rejected.So, there are no new grounds. All the accused colluded with eachother. Considering the support of the family, it could be said that hisentire family was involved in such a crime. He is not a man of goodreputation. He is a cheater. By showing them dreams to becomemillionaire by purchasing the liquor shop licence, a huge amount hasbeen grabbed from the complainant. It may be a hard earned money.The applicant was skilled in convincing the innocent persons. Theapplicant may transfer his property to keep the matter pending.Therefore, he should not be granted bail. 6.The facts of the case have been discussed in detail.Hence, those are not reproduced. The allegations levelled against theapplicant and the evidence collected against him, prima facie appearsthat since inception, he had an intention to cheat the complainant.He cheated the complainant for a huge amount of Rs.6,30,00,000/-.His conduct was apparent that he never had an intention to fulfill hispromise. He has received the money in consideration of promise totransfer or sale the liquor licence in the name of the applicant atdifferent places. Some fake persons were also supporting him, for