Pratik Machindra Pabale 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 breach of trust. The FIR was lodged by Girish Karande, who alleged that the petitioner, employed as a supervisor/accountant since 2016, misappropriated over Rs. 55 Lakhs. The informant claimed the petitioner exploited access to blank cheques and office letterheads, diverting customer payments to a separate bank account he operated. The petitioner contended that the informant was aware of the second bank account, which was opened due to the informant's GST number being suspended in 2020. The petitioner also 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. It noted that the petitioner had attended the police station on the dates specified (May 13-16, 2024) and fully cooperated with the investigation. The Court observed that the police had not subsequently called upon the applicant to record his statement, suggesting the investigation was almost complete and the police did not require further interaction with the applicant. Consequently, the Court found that the case was made out to allow the anticipatory bail application. The ad-interim protection granted earlier was confirmed until the filing of the charge-sheet. The applicant was directed to attend the police station only when called, with 48 hours' prior notice, and was prohibited from interfering with the complainant or witnesses or tampering with evidence. The anticipatory bail application and the interim application were disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of misappropriation of funds and the evidence presented, particularly concerning bank transactions and the operational status of the informant's GST number. The petitioner argued that bank entries demonstrated regular transactions between the two accounts, known to the informant, thereby falsifying the timeline of discovery of the second account. He further contended that the second account was opened for business facilitation due to the informant's GST suspension in 2020, with his name appearing only for operational convenience, and that he had not misappropriated any funds. The petitioner also claimed to have settled the diesel misappropriation issue. The State argued that the petitioner's defense based on bank entries required verification by the investigating officer and that the petitioner must attend the police station to explain these entries and the usual course of business. The informant supported the FIR, stating he blindly trusted the petitioner, who took advantage of that trust.