Bombay High Court
Raju Anna Chaughule And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:9410
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2024
Bharati Yuvraj Sharma .... Applicant
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD
PATIL
Versus
Digitally
signed by
YUGANDHARA
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
SHARAD
PATIL
Date:
2024.02.28
11:41:08
+0530
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 737 OF 2024
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2024
Mahant Rajaram Das Guru ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 476 OF 2024
1. Raju Anna Chaughule
2. Rohan Raju Chaughule .... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 736 OF 2024
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2024
Mahant Rajaram Das Guru ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______
y.s.patil 1 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
Mr. Tushar Chavan a/w Hemant Bhand i/b Dinesh Sonawane for
the applicants in both ABAs.
Ms.Mahalakshmi Ganapathy , APP for the State/Respondent.
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Intervener in IA 737/2024 and IA
736/2024.
______
CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY, 2024
P.C. :
1. Both these matters are decided together by a common
order because they arise out of the same offence.
2. The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R. No. 27 of 2024, dated 16/01/2024,
registered at Panchvati Police Station, Nashik under sections 420,
406, 465, 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard Mr. Chavan for the applicants, Ms.Mahalakshmi
Ganapathy, APP for the Respondent-State and Mr. Ashok B. Tajane,
learned counsel for the Informant.
4. The FIR is lodged by one Mahant Rajaram Das Guru.
He has stated that he was Mahant of Goreram Mandir, Panchavati
y.s.patil 2 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
Nashik since 20 years. He was looking after the daily pooja and
maintainance of the temple. He was spending expenditure from
the money received from the devotees. The applicant Bharati
Sharma used to regularly visit the temple for darshan and
therefore the informant knew her since the year 2019. She had
given Insurance Policy for the informant. In 2020, she introduced
the informant to the Applicant Raju Chaughule. It is mentioned in
the FIR that Raju inquired with the informant as to how much
amount was expected to be spent for renovation of the temple. He
assured the informant that he would help the informant in the
renovation of temple. He represented that he knew many
business-men.
5. In January 2021, the Applicant Raju Chaughule
requested for financial help of Rs. 12 lakhs as he was in some
difficulty. The informant gave him that amount. The applicant
Raju returned those Rs. 12 lakhs through a cheque dated
27/07/2021. Thus, the informant started trusting him.
6. The FIR further goes on to mention that from time to
y.s.patil 3 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
time on some pretext and representation, the Applicant Raju
Chaughule, extracted money from the Informant. It is alleged that
total amount of Rs. 40 lakhs was taken from the informant. There
is one more allegation in the FIR that the informant was given a
car for his use by one of the devotees Pramod Yadav. The
Applicant Raju Chaughule sought permission of the informant to
use that car for a few days. After that he suggested that he could
mortgage that car so that his financial difficulties could be taken
care of. The first informant trusting the applicant gave the
permission. But thereafter, the car was given to one Pimpliskar. It
is not returned to the informant. Thus based on these allegations,
the FIR is lodged.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the
allegations in the FIR are not true. He submitted that it can be
demonstrated through the transactions in respect of the said car. In
that behalf the aforementioned Pimpliskar has given a complaint
to the police on 05/01/2024. He submitted that the complaint is
made against the first informant and Pramod Yadav. According to
him, the informant in this case had accepted Rs. 8,50,000/- but
y.s.patil 4 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
thereafter the car was not transferred in the name of Pimpliskar.
Learned counsel therefore submitted that the transactions in
respect of the car is not a clean transaction and in fact the
informant has cheated the said Pimpliskar.
8. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that out
of Rs. 40 lakhs, Rs. 25 lakhs are paid in cash but there is no proof
in the form of receipt or any other documents or even any other
witness to show that said amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid in cash.
Out of the remaining amount of Rs. 15 lakhs, major amount is
returned. Learned counsel for the Applicants relied on the MOU
dated 27/07/2023 which is purportedly signed by the informant,
wherein, it was mentioned that the informant had suffered loss
only to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs and the informant and the
Applicant Raju had invested Rs. 20 lakhs but the investment was
not fruitful and they had lost that money. They decided to share
the loss. He further submitted that some amount is transferred by
the informant in the account of Expert Advertising Agency. It was
a Firm in the business of investments. Therefore it cannot be said
that the said amount was misappropriated by the Applicant Raju.
y.s.patil 5 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
He submitted that the Applicant Bharati has not played any major
role and even the Applicant Rohan is roped in only because he is
the son of Applicant Raju.
9. I have considered these submissions. Learned APP as
well as learned counsel for the first informant opposed these
submissions. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that
according to the first informant, the copy of the MOU which is
annexed to the Application and which is relied on by learned
counsel for the Applicant is a forged document. The informant has
not signed any such MOU. Learned APP, on the other hand,
produced a copy of the MOU dated 29/04/2023 wherein the
Applicant Raju had undertaken to pay the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.
Learned APP then produced a copy of the statement of Pimpliskar.
He has stated that the informant had taken Rs. 3.50 lakhs but the
car was not transferred in his name. Statement of Pramod Yadav
who is the real owner of the car, shows that he had given that car
only for use of the informant. The informant had given that car to
Pimpliskar who had used it in a careless manner and had caused
y.s.patil 6 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
damage to the car. Pramod Yadav has stated that the car was
registered in his own name. Therefore, as far as the question of car
is concerned, the informant may not have a strong ground to claim
that the Applicant Raju Chaughule had committed any particular
offence in that behalf because the informant is equally responsible
for giving that car to Pimpliskar.
10. As far as the other main allegation of receiving Rs. 40
lakhs is concerned, learned counsel for the Applicants has
submitted that amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid in cash. These
allegations are not true because there is no proof that such amount
was actually paid to the informant. In that behalf, learned APP has
relied on the statement of one Baijnath Sharma who has stated
that he was present at a meeting dated 27/08/2023. It was held
in the temple. It was attended by the Applicants Raju Chaughule
and Bharati. The informant and the other witnesses were present
in that meeting. During that meeting, both these applicants had
accepted the fact that they had taken Rs. 40 lakhs from the
informant and out of that the Applicant could be returned Rs.
33,50,000/- and the Innova Car within one week. This meeting
y.s.patil 7 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
was captured in the CCTV footage. The informant has produced
that footage in a pen drive. A panchnama to that effect is carried
out. This circumstance is important. Therefore, there is substance
in the allegation that said amount was taken by the Applicant Raju
Chaughule on some pretext or the other with dishonest intention.
The conduct of the Applicant Raju shows that his conduct was
dishonest right from the inception. In this view of the matter, the
Applicant Raju Chaughule cannot be protected under section 438
of Cr. P.C. His custodial interrogation is necessary.
11. As far as the Applicant Rohan Chaughule is concerned,
he is son of the Applicant Raju Chaughule. Though some amount
has gone in his account, the FIR itself mentioned that the said
amount was deposited in his account at the behest of the Applicant
Raju Chaughule. Therefore the Applicant Rohan Chaughule can be
protected under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
12. As far as the Applicant Bharati is concerned, there are
hardly any allegations directly against her except that she had
introduced the Applicant Raju to the informant and that she was
y.s.patil 8 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::
904-ABA-475-24&905-ABA-476-24.odt
present during the meeting. In this view of the matter, even she
can be protected under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence the following
order.
ORDER
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No.27 of 2024 registered at Panchvati Police Station, Nashik, the Applicant in ABA No. 475 of 2024, Bharati Sharma as well as the Applicant No. 2 Rohan Chaughule in ABA No. 476 of 2024 are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand Only) each with one or two sureties each in the like amount
(ii) The Applicants shall co-operate with the investigation.
(iii) The application on behalf of Applicant No. 1 Raju Chaughule in ABA No. 476 of 2024 is rejected.
(iv) Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(v) In view of disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Applications, Interim Applications are also disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
y.s.patil 9 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 19:03:55 :::