Kailas Bharat Doshi vs. State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Facts

The Applicant, Kailas Bharat Doshi, is accused number 7 in a First Information Report (FIR) concerning allegations of defrauding 116 candidates by assuring them jobs in the Goods and Services Tax Department. The alleged fraudulent activities included arranging training, conducting interviews, and issuing appointment letters. The Applicant seeks anticipatory bail. Previous anticipatory bail applications filed by other accused individuals were either rejected or withdrawn. The Applicant claims his role is distinct from the other accused, presenting affidavits from relatives stating he assisted them in securing jobs and paid amounts to one Dashrath Bhoir. The prosecution, however, points to statements in the FIR indicating the Applicant received Rs. 1,90,500/- from some witnesses. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has also been lodged against the Applicant by Vikramsinh Kisanrao Bhandalkar, with the Applicant claiming the cheque was stolen while the complainant alleges it was for job security and repayment.

Held

The Court granted interim protection to the Applicant by releasing him on bail in the event of arrest. The Court noted the presence of two appointment letters in the name of the Applicant's daughter and sister-in-law, which the investigating agency is yet to verify for genuineness with the competent authority of the Goods and Services Tax Department. Additionally, the Applicant's upcoming surgery for a prostate gland condition was considered. The Court directed the Applicant to furnish a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 25,000/-, not to threaten or allure prosecution witnesses, and to attend the Phaltan police station on the first and third Thursday of every month from 10 am to 12 noon until further orders. Violation of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail. The application was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of cheating and forgery, and the evidence presented by both sides? (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to Sections 424, 467, 468, 471, 472 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code). Petitioner's Arguments: The Applicant contends that his role is distinguishable from the other accused. He relies on affidavits from relatives suggesting he facilitated job placements and made payments to Dashrath Bhoir, implying he is also a victim or has a lesser role. He also points to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where he claims the cheque was stolen, differentiating it from the job fraud allegations. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State highlights averments in the FIR where witnesses claim to have paid Rs. 1,90,500/- to the Applicant. The APP also refers to statements from the Bhandalkar family, which are part of the FIR, and the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the money was allegedly paid for securing a job and the cheque was issued for repayment.