Prima facie, it appeared that Shashikala 'Baby' Patankar had not received Rs 1.97 crore from the complainant, cited the Bombay High Court, which last week granted interim protection from arrest to Patankar. Also, there was nearly a year-long delay in filing an FIR in connection with the cheating case, it added. The Mumbai crime branch had registered an FIR against Patankar — known as the 'drugs queen' — and one Parshuram Munde for allegedly cheating a South Mumbai-based customs clearing agent of Rs 1.97 crore on the promise of selling 5 kg gold at cheaper rates in October 2021. Following this, Patankar approached the sessions court which rejected her plea, so she approached the Bombay High Court, and got the interim relief on Wednesday. In 2015, Patankar was arrested in connection with a mephedrone supply case, and five police personnel were suspended for their involvement in the case. Patankar was eventually discharged in the case. The latest order states, "Prima facie, there is material to show that the transaction was primarily between the first informant (complainant) and accused no. 1 — Parshuram Munde. Initially, a representation was made by Parshuram Munde. It is not the case that the applicant (Patankar) had induced the first informant to part with the amount by making a false representation to sell the gold. If properly construed, that inducement is attributable to accused no. 1 — Parshuram Munde." The Bombay High Court further observed that the complainant had transferred Rs 1.97 crore to Munde, and not Patankar. "At this stage, there does not seem to be any material to establish a prima facie nexus between the entity to which the amount came to be credited (Munde) and the applicant (Patankar). There is an element of delay in lodging the FIR. The alleged incident of deception occurred in October 2021. The complaint, on behalf of the first informant, was addressed on September 12, 2022. In the said complaint, allegations were also primarily made against accused no. 1 — Parshuram Munde." While granting the interim relief to Patankar, who has been absconding since September 30 this year, the High Court observed, "In this view of the matter, I am impelled to hold that the applicant deserves interim protection as prima facie there is neither allegation of inducement nor material to connect the applicant with the amount, of which the first informant was allegedly defrauded."
