- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr. Bhagyashree Bhaskar Mandalik Applicant v. State Of Maharashtra .
Factual and Procedural Background
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 1635 of 2020 registered at Swargate Police Station, Pune, under sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. The FIR, lodged on 28/9/2020 by Machhindra Mahadev Kupade, arose from an advertisement regarding email marketing opportunities issued by Nagesh Chavan. The informant initially worked with Nagesh Chavan but the work did not progress. Subsequently, the informant was introduced to Nivedita Kulkarni, who was purportedly in need of money to complete a procedure linked to a large inheritance. The FIR alleges that Nagesh Chavan and Nivedita Kulkarni solicited investments promising handsome returns, but misappropriated the funds causing wrongful loss. The applicant’s name appears in the FIR as having received Rs. 5,75,000 through intermediaries, suggesting her involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the allegations under IPC sections 406, 420 r/w 34 and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.
- Whether the applicant is a beneficiary or a victim in the alleged criminal conspiracy involving misappropriation of funds.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The applicant herself lodged a complaint against Rajan Satpute and Nivedita Kulkarni, indicating she was not part of the conspiracy.
- Satpute had deposited over 19 lakhs into the applicant’s account under some pretext, which were directed to be transferred to Nivedita Kulkarni’s account.
- The applicant was assured that financial help would be provided by Nivedita Kulkarni and that her account was used only temporarily.
- A sale deed without consideration was executed at the behest of Nivedita Kulkarni and Satpute, supporting the claim that the applicant was a victim rather than a beneficiary.
- The applicant did not receive any amount for personal benefit; amounts received were immediately transferred to Nivedita Kulkarni.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant who argued that the applicant was a victim and not a conspirator. The applicant’s complaint against other accused and the immediate transfer of funds to Nivedita Kulkarni suggested lack of personal gain. The learned APP sought adjournment due to the absence of the Investigating Officer. In view of the applicant’s arguments and the absence of opposition evidence on that day, the court granted interim protection by way of anticipatory bail till the next date, balancing the need for protection with the ongoing investigation.
Holding and Implications
INTERIM BAIL GRANTED
The court ordered that in the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with C.R. No. 1635 of 2020, she shall be released on bail upon executing a P.R. bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount. This order shall operate until 31/03/2021. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigation and attend the police station when required. The matter is adjourned to 31/03/2021. No broader legal precedent was established; the decision provides temporary relief to the applicant pending further proceedings.
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.:— The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 1635 of 2020 registered at Swargate Police Station, District Pune, under sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and under sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.
2. The gist of the FIR lodged on 28/9/2020, by one Machhindra Mahadev Kupade is that, he came across an advertisement in newspaper, issued by one Nagesh Chavan. The advertisement was about prospects of earning good money through email marketing. The informant contacted Nagesh Chavan. He had worked with Nagesh Chavan in the email marketing but the work had not progressed further. At that time accused Nagesh Chavan and one Manali Ketkar introduced the informant to one Nivedita Kulkarni. The informant was told that Nivedita Kulkarni had lost her husband and crores of rupees were expected to come in her account; but for completing the procedure, she was in need of money. The FIR goes on to mention that accused Nagesh Chavan and Nivedita Kulkarni told the informant that if anybody invested with them for that procedure, they would give handsome returns. The FIR mentions different persons and their investments made with Nagesh Chavan and Nivedita Kulkarni. Allegations are that all these amounts were misappropriated causing wrongful loss. There is a reference in the FIR to the applicant's name. It is mentioned that the applicant was given Rs. 5,75,000 through one Chintamani Thakkar by one Rajan Satpute Therefore she was also part of that conspiracy.
3. Heard Mr. V.V. Purwant, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. A.A. Takalkar, the learned APP for the State.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant herself had given complaint against Satpute and Nivedita Kulkarni. He submitted that under some pretext Satpute deposited more than 19 lakhs in her account which were directed to be transferred in the account of Nivedita Kulkarni. The applicant was assured that Nivedita Kulkarni would give her financial help and only for some time her account was to be used. Shri Purwant submitted that one Sale Deed without consideration was executed at the behest of Nivedita Kulkarni and Satpute. In fact, the applicant herself was a victim. She has not received any amount. The amount which was received from Satpute was immediately transferred to Nivedita Kulkarni, which shows that the applicant was a victim and not a beneficiary in this case.
5. Today, the learned APP is seeking time as the Investigating Officer is not present. At her request today I am adjourning the matter. However, considering submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant, today I am protecting the applicant by granting interim protection to the applicant till the next date.
6. Hence the following order.
(I) In the event of her arrest in connection with C.R. C.R. No. 1635 of 2020 registered with Swargate Police Station, District Pune, till the next date, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) This order shall operate till 31/03/2021.
(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police as and when called and shall co-operate with the investigation.
(iv) Stand over to 31/03/2021.
Alert