Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 6, 2022 – The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Judge Shri G.B. Gurao (C.R. 17), has rejected the bail application of Vinay Suresh Angane (46), who is accused in Crime No. 04/2022 registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station. Angane faces charges under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Details:

The case originates from a complaint filed by Tara Malvankar, a widow who sought to purchase a house in January 2019. Through an advocate, Mr. Abhay Kotak, Malvankar was introduced to the accused, Vinay Angane. Angane allegedly informed her that he had connections with MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority) officials and could secure a room under the MMRDA’s 10% quota in new buildings for Rs. 15 lakhs.

Trusting Angane, the complainant paid him Rs. 15 lakhs, followed by an additional Rs. 22,670/-. However, after one year, Angane allegedly failed to provide the promised room. In January 2020, he issued cheques drawn on Saraswat Bank, Kandivali (W), Mumbai, which were subsequently dishonored due to a stop payment instruction from Angane. Following this, the complainant lodged a police report, leading to the registration of the crime.

Arguments for Bail:

Mr. Gaurav Pandey, the advocate for Vinay Suresh Angane, argued that his client is innocent and falsely implicated, asserting that he has not committed any crime. He stated that the investigation is complete and that Angane has a clear record of antecedents. Mr. Pandey also expressed Angane’s willingness to comply with any court-imposed conditions, emphasizing that “bail is rule and jail is an exception.” He cited Supreme Court judgments, including State of Rajasthan Jaipur Vs. Balchand alias Baliay (1977), State of Kerala Vs. Raneef (2011), and Bhagirathsinh Vs. State of Gujarat (1983), to support the general principles of granting bail.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

Mr. Ramesh Siroya, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, strongly opposed the bail application. He contended that the offense is serious and that the investigation is still ongoing. Mr. Siroya informed the court that the police had to trace the accused using Call Detail Records (CDR) because he was not readily available. He expressed concerns that if released on bail, Angane might abscond.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Additional Judge G.B. Gurao considered the arguments and perused the cited authorities. While acknowledging the legal precedents emphasizing bail as a rule, the court found distinguishing factors in the present case.

The Judge noted that the “investigation is in progress” and that the APP had submitted that the “accused has cheated many peoples.” Crucially, the court highlighted from the investigating officer’s say that the “accused was not traceable and he was arrested with the help of CDR.”

Considering that the investigation is still at a preliminary stage and the seriousness of the alleged offense, particularly the accused’s apparent attempt to evade arrest, the court concluded that Vinay Suresh Angane was not entitled to bail at this juncture.

Order:

The Bail Application No. 697/2022 was therefore rejected and disposed of.