The Bombay High Court has extended interim protection to persons accused of defrauding agriculturalists under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker has observed that prima facie the applicant’s company has gone in losses and that there was no intention of the applicant either to cheat or there is any breach of trust.
The applicant is apprehending arrest for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The applicant has made various transactions with the agriculturists and has made payment to the tune of Rs. 66,20,88,771 and the outstanding amount due is Rs. 16,82,71,981/-. It is stated that while he was in jail, the factory was not functioning and as such there was outstanding dues. It is stated that when the matter was preceded before NCLT, the applicant himself represented the case of the farmers before the NCLT.
The state contended that the applicant has taken agricultural produces from the agriculturists and not paid for the same to the tune of Rs.16,82,71,981/- and thus, he has cheated the agriculturists.
The Court while considering the applicant was in jail for long period of time under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) and considering that in the said PMLA proceedings, the applicant has been granted bail and the applicant faced losses in business, it cannot be said that the applicant intended to defraud the farmers. Thus, the applicant is prima facie not involved in the present crime. At best, it can be said that the applicant’s company has gone in losses and that there was no intention of the applicant either to cheat or there is any breach of trust.
The court extended the interim protection subject to various conditions.
Firstly, the applicant shall attend the police station as and when required.
Secondly, The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.
Lastly, the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Ajay Versus The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 179 OF 2024
Date: 25/04/2025
Counsel For Applicant: V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: N.B. Patil
Read More: How a Junior Advocate Can Easily File a Cheque Bounce Case? Legal Provisions and Draft Format
