2018 (9) TMI 1929 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail application - application filed in the prescribed Form No.I is found to be complete - possession of cash of ₹ 1 Crore in demonetized notes - HELD THAT - The FIR does not prima facie reveal that the first informant had paid the money to the applicant. The allegations are mainly against Anita and Mukund Masane. It is also to be noted that the applicant is in custody since 20 th December, 2017, and his presence is no longer required for the purpose of interrogation or investigation. The learned APP has also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of Kalyan. There is no possibility of the applicant absconding and or thwarting the course of justice. The applicant is entitled for bail subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC based on a FIR involving exchange of demonetized notes and allegations of cheating and misappropriation.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to a case registered at Kharghar Police Station for offences under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. The FIR was lodged by the first informant alleging that the applicant was involved in exchanging demonetized notes for a commission. It was claimed that the applicant introduced the first informant and others to individuals for the purpose of exchanging the notes. However, the FIR did not clearly establish that the applicant induced the first informant to pay the money or had the intention to deceive. The records indicated that both parties were willing participants in an illegal act, which could impact the charges of cheating or misappropriation. The FIR primarily implicated other individuals, not the applicant, and highlighted the voluntary nature of the transaction. The applicant had been in custody since December 20, 2017, and the investigating officer confirmed that the applicant's presence was no longer necessary for interrogation or investigation. Additionally, the applicant had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident with no risk of absconding or obstructing justice.

The court considered the circumstances and the lack of prima facie evidence linking the applicant directly to the alleged offense. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant with specific terms and conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the investigation. The bail conditions included furnishing a bail bond, reporting to the authorities monthly, refraining from interfering with witnesses or evidence, providing contact details, and maintaining the residential address without changes unless informed to the investigating officer. The court's decision was based on the absence of clear evidence implicating the applicant and the assurance of the applicant's cooperation with the legal proceedings.