Bombay High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea in High-Profile Cheating Case
Advocate's Inducement for Share Trading with False Profit Promises Leads to Criminal Investigation
News Report:
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Rupali Bapurao Jadhav and others, accused in a high-profile cheating and criminal misappropriation case. The case revolves around allegations of dishonest inducement for investment in share trading, promising unrealistic monthly profits of 10% to 15%. Justice Amit Borkar's judgment underscores the necessity for custodial interrogation, given the substantial amounts involved and multiple victims.
The prosecution, led by Mrs. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for the Respondent-State, contended that the applicants, practicing advocates, lured the informant into investing Rs.30 lakh in intraday share trading with false assurances of extraordinary returns. Despite initial payments, the applicants allegedly failed to honor further commitments, leading to the informant lodging a complaint.
The court noted that the promise of high monthly profits in share trading was inherently unrealistic, suggesting dishonest intention at the inception. Evidence, including transcripts of conversations and documents indicating receipt of money, supported the prosecution's case. The judgment emphasizes that the allegations extend beyond civil liability, revealing a prima facie case of cheating and criminal misappropriation.
Justice Borkar's ruling also highlights professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. The applicants' involvement in transactions promising unrealistic profits and liaisoning work with government authorities was deemed unethical, bolstering the prosecution's case of dishonest intention. The court observed that such conduct reflects a misuse of professional status, further aggravating the seriousness of the matter.
Given the magnitude of funds, the number of victims, and the necessity to trace the utilization of funds, the court deemed custodial interrogation essential. The rejection of interim relief signals an uncompromising stance on investigating the alleged fraudulent activities.
This decision sets a precedent in addressing cases where professional misconduct and unrealistic financial promises intersect, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to uphold ethical standards within the legal profession.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail application rejected in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal misappropriation, with the court emphasizing dishonest intention at the inception, inducement with false promises of extraordinary returns, and misuse of professional status by advocates.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318(4), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 3(5), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Advocates Act, 1961 Section 35
Rupali Bapurao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2780106
