Anticipatory Bail Granted to Applicants in Alleged Cheating Case

Zafar Khan- Akola
An anticipatory bail application filed by Adv Mir Nagman Ali on behalf of Nirmalkumar Shankarrao Athvale, Ashish Bhagwan Kamble, and Sangit Ashokrao Chavhan in Crime No. 660/2024 has been considered by the court. The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with alleged offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur.
Adv Mir Nagman Ali, in their plea, argued that there was no need for custodial investigation as the applicants are permanent residents of their respective addresses and are willing to cooperate fully with the investigation. They claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case and denied any involvement in the alleged crime. Furthermore, they stated that there was nothing to recover from them, and they were not connected to the offence in any way.
However, the Investigating Officer strongly objected to the anticipatory bail application, stating that custodial interrogation was necessary as the amount involved in the case had not been recovered yet. The officer further contended that if the applicants were granted anticipatory bail, they might not cooperate with the investigation.
Upon reviewing the submissions and examining the details of the case, the court observed that the applicants were not directly involved in the alleged crime. There was no evidence to show that they had signed any documents related to the sale of the plots or received any payment from the informant. The agreement was executed by accused Mithun Kate, who had accepted the payment. Additionally, the ownership documents showed that one of the applicants was the owner of the plots in question.
The court also noted that the offence was primarily related to documentary evidence, which was already in the possession of the Investigating Officer, and there was no further need to recover anything from the applicants. Given that the applicants had no criminal history and the investigation could proceed without their custodial detention, the court ruled that anticipatory bail was warranted.
In light of these circumstances, the court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, recognizing their reasonable apprehension of arrest.