Amar Kisan Kasabe vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the offenses registered. The co-accused was caught with cash at the applicant's behest, and the available material, including CDRs and transcripts, indicated the applicant's involvement. The Court noted that the applicant allegedly contacted the informant after sending complaints to the Governor and other authorities, demanding money. The Court also considered that the applicant has at least two criminal antecedents, which disentitle him from any indulgence. Therefore, no case was made out for granting anticipatory bail, and the application was rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Amar Kisan Kasabe, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0382 of 2024, registered on April 9, 2024, at Kondhwa Police Station, Pune. The FIR was filed by a retired Army Colonel who runs a security guard business. The informant alleged that the applicant made frivolous complaints against him and his establishment regarding alleged wrongdoings causing loss to the State exchequer in GST and Income Tax, and also involving money laundering. The informant claims the applicant demanded ₹25 lakhs to withdraw these complaints. On April 8, 2024, a trap was laid, and the applicant's co-accused was apprehended with ₹50,000 and certain papers, leading to the registration of the FIR. The applicant claims he is a political activist who reported corruption and fraud, and the FIR is a counter-blast.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of extortion and criminal conspiracy? The applicant argued that he is a political activist who had made genuine complaints about corruption and fraud concerning GST, Income Tax, and money laundering, causing loss to the public exchequer. He contended that the FIR was registered as a counter-blast to his complaints and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. The State argued that the applicant, in connivance with a disgruntled employee of the informant, engaged in blackmailing. They submitted that the co-accused was caught red-handed with cash, and Call Details Records (CDRs) and transcripts of conversations recorded by the informant demonstrate the applicant's direct involvement in the alleged offenses.