Mangecha Jayvin Suryakantbhai vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that in view of the applicant's willingness to deposit the sum of Rs.1,96,000/- within a period of one week before the concerned jurisdictional Court, custodial interrogation of the applicant was not necessary in the facts of the present case. This deposit was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties, reporting to the Investigating Officer on specified dates, cooperating with the investigation, not inducing witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and providing residential and contact details. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Mangecha Jayvin Suryakantbhai, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for offenses under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 66A and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant alleged that the applicant promised to supply Oximeters at a rate of Rs.190/- + GST per piece, with a total consideration of Rs.2,12,800/-. An advance of Rs.12,800/- was paid online, and Rs.1,84,000/- in cash. However, the Oximeters were not supplied, leading to an alleged cheating of Rs.1,96,000/-. The applicant had prior anticipatory bail orders from the High Courts of Jharkhand and Gujarat in relation to similar CRs registered in different states. The applicant was willing to deposit Rs.1,96,000/- within a week.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and the IT Act offenses, and the fact that the applicant is willing to deposit the alleged cheated amount? The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary given the willingness to deposit the disputed amount and the existence of prior anticipatory bail orders from other High Courts. The petitioner relied on the orders from the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Bail Application No.14756 of 2021) and the High Court of Gujarat (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1129 of 2021) which granted regular bail. The State did not record any specific arguments against the grant of anticipatory bail, other than the implication in the FIR.