Bombay High Court: In the present case, an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS, 2023’) was filed in a case, registered with Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai, wherein FIR dated 14-4-2025 was registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(1) of the BNSS based on the complaint of Respondent 2, Jayprakash Suru Shetty. A Single Judge Bench of Advait M. Sethna, J., noted that the applicant was a party to the MOU dated 22-1-2025 to be executed between Accused 3 and Respondent 2, whereby Respondent 2, who used to run a restaurant was induced to pay Rs 82 lakhs, in the nature of illegal gratification for giving it to BMC officials to transfer the restaurant’s ownership, in the name of Respondent 2.
The Court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application, stated that today Respondent 2 was a victim of such conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and tomorrow there might be someone else. Therefore, the Court held that it would be a travesty of justice if the applicant’s custodial interrogation was stalled or prevented.
Background
The applicant-Accused 1, was a real estate agent for the last 20 years and Respondent 2 had a restaurant in the name of ‘Geeta’ located in Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. It was stated that the applicant hatched a conspiracy with Accused persons 2 and 3, to cheat Respondent 2 by inducing him to pay by misrepresentation, an amount of Rs 82 lakhs, i.e., Rs.50 lakhs by bank transfer and Rs 32 lakhs by cash, in the nature of illegal gratification for the purposes of giving it to some BMC officials for transferring the ownership in Geeta restaurant, in the name of Respondent 2.
It was further stated that Accused persons 2 and 3 frequently visited the said restaurant and it was the applicant who first approached Respondent 2 to offer his help in getting the restaurant transferred under Respondent 2’s name, and getting the rent reduced by coordinating with some BMC officials, with the assistance and involvement of Accused 2 and 3 and thus, an amount of Rs 82 lakhs was taken from Respondent 2, on such pretext.
The applicant submitted that he was framed and had no role to play. He stated that he did receive Rs 11,45,034 from Accused 3 as a loan from 26-2-2024 until 24-4-2024, out of which, Rs 5,94,011 was repaid by him to Accused 3 and the balance amount was used for his mother’s cancer treatment. Thus, he submitted that the amounts received by him from Accused 3 had no connection with the amounts received by Accused persons 2 and 3 from Respondent 2. The applicant also submitted that his mother, aged 73-years-old, was diagnosed with breast cancer and was suggested to undergo surgery, and that he was the only person to take care of his mother after the demise of his father and the elder brother. Thus, his application for anticipatory bail should be allowed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the applicant’s contention that the amount of Rs 11,45,034 was received by him from Accused 3 was in the nature of loan, appeared to be doubtful and an afterthought, as there was no document regarding such loan and/or any material to buttress such contention. The Court also stated that there were amounts which were received in the bank account of the applicant from Accused 3 as well as in cash which the applicant did not dispute. The Court opined that this aspect required to be investigated as to whether it had a connection with the amount of Rs 82 lakhs paid by Respondent 2 to Accused persons 2 and 3.
The Court took note of the WhatsApp chats which clearly revealed that the applicant was aware and a party to the MOU dated 22-1-2025 to be executed between Accused 3 and Respondent 2, in regard to the transaction in question, and opined that such chats would belie the applicant’s case that he was not concerned at all with Accused persons 2 and 3.
The Court noted that there were six criminal proceedings against the applicant and that too in offences relating to Sections 420 and 467, etc. The Court opined that a perusal of the antecedents would show that the applicant was adopting a similar modus operandi of habitually, entering into such dubious transactions. The Court stated that today Respondent 2 was a victim of such conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and tomorrow there might be someone else. Therefore, based on such antecedents, it would be travesty of justice if the applicant’s contentions were accepted and his custodial interrogation was stalled or prevented.
The Court further took note of the voice recording of conversation between the applicant and Respondent 2’s daughter, where the applicant demanded money from her for bribing BMC officials. The Court opined that such material prima facie indicated an attempt on the applicant’s part to influence the prospective witnesses, which was legally impermissible.
The Court opined that the applicant did not approach the Court with clean hands which was the sine qua non, in an application for pre-arrest bail. Further, the Court opined that the complaint had merit for which the applicant might have to be interrogated for effective and appropriate investigation as the law would mandate. Thus, the Court, after considering the applicant’s conduct, rejected the anticipatory bail application by holding that there was no case made out by the applicant for the grant of anticipatory bail and there was no reason to interfere in the process of investigation and put breaks on the wheels of investigation as the law would not permit the Court to take such an approach in the present case.
[Pawan Amar Mutreja v. State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1048 of 2025, decided on 16-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Rahul Moghe i/by Kalyani Rathod for the Applicant.
For the Respondents: Supriya Kak, APP for the State; Chirag Sawant for Respondent 2.
