Milind Jagannath Rane vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the material on record prima facie indicated that the applicant was involved in cheating and forgery. The Court noted that the applicant had allegedly induced the first informant to make payments by falsely representing that he had been awarded a contract to establish a biogas plant, which was not supported by any evidence from the Municipal Corporation. The Court also observed that the vendors from whom machinery was purportedly purchased were not engaged in the sale of such machinery, and their invoices appeared to be forged and fabricated. Furthermore, the funds deposited by the first informant were transferred to the applicant's company after deducting GST and then to his personal account. Considering the nature of the alleged offences, the Court concluded that the facts and circumstances did not justify the exercise of discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Milind Jagannath Rane, is seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences including cheating and forgery. The first informant, Smt. Mana Rasik Shah, Director of M/s. Green Practices Pvt. Ltd., alleged that the applicant, a Director of Siddhi Wastetogreen Ltd., induced her to invest approximately Rs. 2.70 crore for a biogas plant project. The applicant claimed to have a contract from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and an allotted plot. The first informant agreed to purchase machinery for rent to the applicant. After initial rental payments, the applicant allegedly stopped payments and provided evasive replies. Investigations revealed no such contract or land allotment, and that the vendors from whom machinery was purportedly purchased were engaged in different businesses, with invoices appearing forged. The funds deposited by the first informant were transferred to Siddhi Wastetogreen Ltd. after deducting GST, and then to the applicant's personal account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case justify the exercise of discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant? The petitioner argued that the case involved civil disputes and financial transactions, and that the allegations of forgery and cheating were not substantiated. He contended that the applicant had no intention to cheat and that the transactions were legitimate business dealings. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the material on record prima facie indicated cheating and forgery. They highlighted the lack of a contract with the Municipal Corporation, the alleged fabrication of invoices by vendors who were not in the business of selling such machinery, and the diversion of funds to the applicant's personal account after deducting GST. The State contended that the applicant's actions demonstrated a clear intention to cheat from the inception.