Pradeep Dasu Gaikwad vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The allegations in the FIR clearly indicated that the applicant had siphoned off a substantial amount without the informant's permission and without informing him. The Memorandum of Understanding relied upon by the applicant actually corroborated the fact that such an amount was taken and an undertaking to repay was given, which the applicant failed to fulfill. The Court reasoned that the applicant's failure to repay, coupled with the unauthorized transfer, constituted an offense. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary to ascertain the duration of these alleged criminal activities and the whereabouts of the misappropriated proceeds. Therefore, no case for anticipatory bail was made out.

Facts

The applicant, Pradeep Dasu Gaikwad, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 406, and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed by Rajesh Balkrushna Mahajan, owner of an event management company. The applicant, employed as an accountant since 2008, was entrusted with bank transaction authority. In June 2018, he left the job. Upon checking accounts for GST payment, the informant discovered that the applicant had transferred approximately Rs. 40 Crores to M/s. Holiday Tours and Travels, a firm he had formed. This transfer was allegedly unauthorized and misappropriated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 40 Crores, considering the FIR registered under Sections 420, 406, and 467 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed in August 2018, where the applicant agreed to repay the taken amount, was not mentioned in the FIR. He also submitted that a part of the amount had been repaid and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, suggesting no offense was made out. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned APP contended that a huge amount was misappropriated by deceiving the first informant. He further submitted that the informant had waited for the applicant to repay the amount, giving him ample opportunity, and only lodged the FIR as a last resort when the amount was not repaid.