The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Jash Hitesh Shah, a 31-year-old resident of Kandivali, Mumbai, who is accused of misappropriating gold ornaments worth ₹3.5 lakh. The case, registered at the Borivali Police Station, involves charges under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Allegations
The prosecution has alleged that on April 19, 2024, Shah approached the informant and expressed interest in borrowing gold ornaments on the pretext that his uncle wished to commission jewelry of a similar design. Shah requested to borrow a 25-gram Rudraksha gold chain, a 15-gram diamond-studded gold ring, and a 10-gram gold ring, with a combined value of ₹3.5 lakh, for detailed examination. The informant agreed and handed over the gold items to Shah, with the understanding that they would be returned soon after.
However, when the informant requested the return of the gold ornaments, Shah allegedly gave evasive responses and failed to return the jewelry. The informant subsequently filed a complaint with the Borivali Police, accusing Shah of misappropriating the jewelry.
Court Proceedings
During the hearing, the defense argued that Shah and the informant had a long-standing business relationship. According to the defense, Shah had often helped resell the informant’s gold articles to potential buyers, and the FIR was filed with the intent of extorting money from him. The defense claimed that Shah was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.
On the other hand, the prosecution presented evidence suggesting that Shah intended to cheat the informant from the outset. The prosecution pointed to CCTV footage that allegedly captured the moment when Shah took possession of the gold items from the informant, as well as the testimony of eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the exchange. The prosecution also highlighted that the gold ornaments had not yet been recovered, and that Shah had prior criminal records of a similar nature. The prosecution argued that Shah’s custodial interrogation was necessary for the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Observations
After reviewing the case, the court noted that the material on record prima facie indicated Shah’s involvement in the alleged misappropriation. Justice R.N. Laddha observed that Shah had received the gold ornaments under the pretense of showing them to his uncle and had failed to return the items as promised. The court also took into account the prosecution’s argument that Shah had a prior criminal record, which raised concerns about his possible involvement in similar fraudulent activities.
Given that the gold items were yet to be recovered and that the investigation was still underway, the court ruled that it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Shah. The judge stated that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary for the investigation to proceed and to recover the misappropriated jewelry.
In light of the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the court rejected Shah’s anticipatory bail application. The court further clarified that the observations made during the proceedings were prima facie and limited to deciding the bail application.
Leave a Reply