Vaijayanta Manik Pawar vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the Criminal Anticipatory Bail Applications. The primary reasoning for granting bail was the applicants' undertaking to deposit a substantial sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- before the JMFC, Pune, in a stipulated timeline, as a demonstration of their bona fides. The Court accepted the statements made in the applicants' affidavits and ordered that in the event of arrest, they be released on bail. The Court clarified that the deposit was to show bona fides and was without prejudice to their rights and defences. It was also noted that the deposit would not constitute the total liability in the prosecution case and that the ultimate liability concerning the deposited amounts would be decided by the Trial Court during the trial. The Court directed the applicants to comply with the affidavits and deposit the amounts within the stipulated time.

Facts

Two applicants, Himanshu Aditya Lohani and Vaijayanta Manik Pawar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 364 of 2019 registered at Paud Police Station, Pune, for offences under Sections 408, 420, 465 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that Himanshu, a marketing and sales executive, and Vaijayanta, proprietor of Jackbox Media, conspired to divert the complainant's company work by preparing forged quotations with a fake GST number for their advertising agency. They were also accused of misappropriating company funds. The applicants had previously filed applications for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which were rejected. In their current applications before the High Court, the applicants undertook to deposit a total of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rs. 17,50,000/- each) before the JMFC, Pune, in a phased manner to demonstrate their bona fides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 364 of 2019 registered for alleged offences under Sections 408, 420, 465 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the allegations of forgery, cheating, and misappropriation involving a fake GST number and diversion of work. Contentions of the Applicants: The applicants argued that their apprehension of arrest was genuine and sought anticipatory bail. They demonstrated their bona fides by undertaking to deposit a significant sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- before the Court of JMFC, Pune, as per a schedule outlined in their affidavits. They relied on their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and the proposed deposit as grounds for granting bail. Contentions of the State: The State, represented by the APP, did not appear to have raised specific objections to the grant of anticipatory bail in the judgment, other than being the respondent in the applications. The judgment does not record any specific arguments or reliance on any provisions or precedents by the State.