Mumbai, June 6, 2022 – The Additional Judge S.M. Menjoge rejected the bail application of Vinay Suresh Angane, accused in a cheating case registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station. The court cited Angane’s previous involvement in a similar offense and his clear intent to defraud the complainant as reasons for denying bail.

Angane was arrested in connection with Crime No. 4/2022, registered under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the complainant, Tara Malvankar, she wanted to purchase a house in Mumbai. An advocate introduced her to Angane, who assured her he could allot a house under the MMRDA scheme. He demanded Rs. 15 lakhs within a month, and the complainant deposited Rs. 15,22,670 into Angane’s account. However, Angane neither handed over possession of the house nor refunded the money. The cheques he issued were also dishonored.

Angane, through his advocate Mr. Pandey, sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that he was falsely implicated and had no intention to cheat the complainant. He claimed that the lockdown due to COVID-19 prevented him from arranging the repayment. He also stated that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manjushri Golhar, opposed the bail, arguing that Angane had a previous case registered against him (Crime No. 204/2002) under Section 420 and was an absconding accused in that case. They argued that he was likely to commit similar offenses if released.

Judge Menjoge, after perusing the case diary and hearing both sides, noted the following:

• Angane received over Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant under the pretext of providing a house.
• He failed to deliver the house and issued dishonored cheques when asked for a refund.
• Angane had a previous case registered against him for cheating and was an absconding accused in that case.

“On perusal of the same, it is found that the present applicant has received the amount of more than 15 lacs from the complainant on the pretext of providing her the house under MMRDA scheme. But he did not fulfilled the same and when complainant demanded the refund of money he issued the cheques which were dishonoured. This clearly shows the intention of applicant to cheat the complainant. Not only this, already one crime no.204/2002 under section 420 is registered against the applicant and the present applicant is absconding accused in the said crime.” Said Judge Menjoge.

The court also considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases regarding the grant or refusal of bail.

“I have gone through the law laid down in above cases. There can not be a straight jacket formula while deciding the bail application. The seriousness of offence and its gravity, possibility of repetition of crime in future and effect of grant of refusal of the bail on the society at large is required to be considered. In the present case in my hand, the complainant lady is cheated by huge amount by the applicant. Hence, he is not entitled for the bail.” Said Judge Menjoge.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, the clear intent to defraud, and the likelihood of Angane repeating similar crimes.

Consequently, the court rejected Angane’s bail application.

“Bail Application No. 1199/2022 is rejected and disposed of accordingly.” Judge Menjoge ordered.

The order was dictated, transcribed, and signed on June 6, 2022, and uploaded on the same day, as certified by stenographer S.S. Sawant.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach in considering previous criminal records and the intent to defraud when deciding bail applications in cheating cases. It also underscores the court’s concern for protecting vulnerable individuals from financial fraud.