Neelam Vaibhav Dhamankar vs. Maharashtra State
AI Summary
In a significant ruling, the Satara Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Neelam Vaibhav Dhamankar, who is accused of cheating the informant and others of a substantial amount. The court emphasized the applicant's failure to comply with interim bail conditions and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation, impacting individuals seeking pre-arrest bail in similar cases involving financial fraud.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The applicant, Neelam Vaibhav Dhamankar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 20/2019 registered at Khandala Police Station, involving offenses under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 39 and 45 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and her husband cheated individuals out of Rs. 1,40,53,920/-. While an ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted, the applicant failed to comply with its conditions, specifically regarding attending the police station, and remained absent from subsequent hearings.
Timeline of Events
Ad-interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Ad-interim bail order continued.
Ad-interim bail order continued till next date.
Prosecution filed its say (Exh. 10) and an application for applicant's presence; applicant remained absent thereafter.
Criminal Bail Application No. 406/2019 rejected.
Key Factual Findings
The applicant failed to file an application for continuation of the ad-interim order.
Source: Current Court Finding
The applicant remained absent after 2019-06-17.
Source: Current Court Finding
The applicant did not comply with the conditions imposed while granting ad-interim anticipatory bail, particularly regarding attending the police station.
Source: Current Court Finding
Custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, as she is in custody of business records.
Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading
The applicant and her husband cheated the informant and others to the tune of Rs. 1,40,53,920/-.
Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The applicant contends that a compromise has occurred between the informant and the accused, and the invested amount has been repaid. Police statements regarding this compromise have been recorded. The applicant's husband has been arrested, but she is being sought by the police.
Respondent's Arguments
The prosecution opposes the application, stating that the applicant and her husband cheated the informant and others out of Rs. 1,40,53,920/-. They allege the applicant failed to comply with the condition to attend the police station as per the ad-interim bail order. Custodial interrogation is required because the applicant is in custody of business records.
Court's Reasoning
The court noted that while ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted on 2019-06-07 and continued until 2019-06-13, no further application for its continuation was filed. More critically, the applicant remained absent after 2019-06-17 and failed to comply with the conditions imposed during the ad-interim bail. Considering these objections and the need for custodial interrogation for a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
- Strict Adherence to Procedural Compliance
- Emphasis on Investigative Requirements
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other District Courts)/Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a District Sessions Court order dealing with the specific facts and procedural non-compliance of an anticipatory bail application, primarily serving as a procedural precedent for similar facts rather than establishing new law.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble District Judge-5 Satara.
Listed On:
27 Jun 2019
Order Text
ORDER BELOW EXH. 1 IN CRI. MISC. APPLICATION No. 406/2019 (Neelam Vaibhav Dhamankar Vs. State of Maharashtra) CNR : MHST01-001663-2019
-
This is the application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 apprehending the arrest of applicant in C.R.No. 20/2019, registered with Khandala Police Station, Dist. Satara.
-
It is stated that crime is registered in respect of offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code. However, section 406 and 409 are added subsequently along with section 39 and 45 of Bombay Money Lenders Act. It is further stated that applicant had preferred application for anticipatory bail before this Court and before the Hon'ble High Court. Same are rejected. Subsequently, compromise taken place between the informant and accused and the invested amount of informant has been paid. Accordingly, these statements have been recorded by the police. It is stated that husband of this applicant is arrested by the police and police are searching this applicant.
-
Prosecution has opposed the application by filing say at exh.10. stating that, applicant and her husband cheated that informant and other to the tune of Rs. 1,40,53,920/ It is further stated that, applicant has not complied the condition to attend the police station. Custodial interrogation is required, she is in custody of record of their business. Hence, submitted to reject the application.
-
After granting adinterim anticipatory bail on 0706 2019 applicant engaged another advocate, said order was continued on 11062019 till next date i.e till 13062019. Thereafter, no application for continuation of adinterim order is filed. On 17062019 say is filed by prosecution exh. 10 as well as application seeking direction the accused to remain present at the time of hearing of application. On said application no reply is filed and since then applicant remained absent. Considering objections raised to continue bail granted to applicant as she has not complied the conditions imposed while granting adinterim anticipatory bail. Application deserves to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
- Criminal Bail Application no. 406/2019, is rejected.
Date : 27th June, 2019 Satara
(B.S.Wavre) Place : Satara Addl. Sessions Judge
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order