Girish Harishchandra Karande vs. State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The petitioner, Pratik Machindra Pabale, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered on February 15, 2024, for offenses including cheating and criminal misappropriation. The FIR was lodged by Girish Karande, who alleged that the petitioner, his former supervisor/accountant, misappropriated over Rs. 55 Lakhs from business transactions. The informant claimed the petitioner misused blank signed cheques and office keys, diverting customer payments to a separate bank account he operated. The petitioner argued that the informant was aware of the second bank account, which was opened due to the informant's GST number being suspended in 2020. He presented bank entries suggesting regular transactions between the two accounts, even prior to February 2024, and claimed to have settled the diesel misappropriation allegations. The High Court initially granted interim protection, directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that the petitioner had attended the police station on the dates specified in the earlier order (May 13-16, 2024) and fully cooperated with the investigation. It observed that the police had not subsequently called upon the applicant to record his statement, which suggested that the investigation was almost complete and the police did not require further interaction with the applicant. Based on this, the Court found that the case was made out to allow the anticipatory bail application. The ad-interim protection granted on April 26, 2024, was confirmed until the filing of the charge-sheet. The applicant was directed to attend the police station as and when called, with 48 hours' notice, and was restrained from interfering with the complainant or witnesses. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court proceeded to grant the relief sought.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of misappropriation and cheating under Sections 420, 408, 465, 467, 468 of the IPC? 2. Whether the bank entries presented by the petitioner, indicating regular transactions and the informant's alleged knowledge of the second bank account, constitute a reasonable defence sufficient to warrant anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR was false and motivated. He argued that the informant was aware of the second bank account with G.P. Parsik Co-operative Bank, which was opened because the informant's GST number was suspended in 2020. He presented bank statements showing transfers between the informant's ICICI Bank account and the G.P. Parsik Bank account, some dating back to October 2022, thereby falsifying the informant's claim of discovering the second account only in February 2024. The petitioner also claimed to have settled the alleged misappropriation of diesel. He relied on these bank entries to demonstrate a potential defence. Revenue's Arguments: The State submitted that the petitioner's defence based on bank entries required verification by the investigating officer. They argued that the petitioner needed to attend the police station to explain these entries and the usual course of business. The State did not present specific counter-arguments to the petitioner's reliance on bank entries but emphasized the need for further investigation.