Nitesh Rameshchand Agroya vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The reasoning was primarily based on the observations made by the Sessions Court while granting bail to accused no. 1. The Sessions Court had noted that accused no. 1 had placed on record previous receipts of goods delivered by the informant, bank account extracts showing GST deduction, and invoices, indicating business transactions where goods were ordered and paid for. The Sessions Court concluded that accused no. 1 had not committed an offence of breach of trust and that the dispute was essentially for the recovery of money, which could be pursued through civil proceedings. Considering these factual aspects, the documents on record, and the Sessions Court's observations, the High Court found that the applicant did not need to be subjected to custodial interrogation and that the case for anticipatory bail was made out. The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety, and directed to report to the investigating officer on specified dates.

Facts

The applicant, Nitesh Rameshchand Agroya, sought anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 54 of 2020, registered for offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that on August 16, 2019, accused no. 1 took gold ornaments weighing 1226.100 grams, valued at Rs. 47,20,000/-, for a marriage ceremony, promising payment which was not made. Accused no. 1, the applicant's brother, was arrested. During investigation, accused no. 1's mother allegedly stated that the applicant took the ornaments from their residence. The applicant's anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court. Accused no. 1 was granted bail by the Sessions Court, which observed the dispute to be of a civil nature.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 54 of 2020, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and the alleged involvement of the applicant in taking the gold ornaments. Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued he was falsely implicated and lacked proof of his involvement. He contended that the memorandum panchanama statement attributed to his mother was not made to the investigation agency. He submitted that his brother (accused no. 1) was granted bail, with the Sessions Court observing the dispute as civil. The applicant also presented GST records for August to December 2019, including invoices dated August 21 and 23, 2019, arguing these did not tally with the FIR's claim of delivery on August 16, 2019, and that no sale entry was made. He argued custodial interrogation was not warranted. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The APP argued that the applicant's complicity was disclosed during the investigation, with the co-accused and the applicant's mother indicating the applicant took the ornaments. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for recovery. The intervener supported the APP, emphasizing the high value of gold and the need for recovery.