:1:
Order on BA No.566/24
MHCC020036342024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.566 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.58 of 2023
Abhishek Gangaram Mahadik
Age : 32 years,
Residing at 302/Pawanputra Hanuman
Krupa CHS Ltd.,
Shridhar Mhatre Chowk,
Garibacha Wada, Dombivali (West) – 421202.

]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Unit IV, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Gopal More for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 4th April, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Abhishek Gangaram Mahadik resident of Dombivali, under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
regular bail.

:2:
2.

Order on BA No.566/24
A case being C.R. No.58 of 2023 registered with EOW, Unit IV,
Mumbai (C.R. No.594 of 2023 registered with Sahar Police
Station) against the present Applicant for the offence punishable
under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”)
3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
Exhibit No.02.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
Applicant / accused was working as a Senior Supervisor,
Finance Treasury Department in Interasia Shipping Lines India
Pvt. Ltd. Company (hereinafter referred as “FE”). He was
appointed as Authority for bank accounts of the FE. During
12.05.2023 to 09.08.2023 while doing official duty, applicant/
accused prepared different vouchers, fabricated e-mails, forged
tally vouchers and thereby, by misleading senior officers sought
grant to such vouchers to the total amount of Rs.16,43,79,000/(Rupees Sixteen Crores Forty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand
only). He has transferred the said amount to his bank accounts.
To suppress his illegal activities he has further prepared forged
bank statement and thereby deceived the FE.
5.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that initial bail
applications filed by the applicant before charge-sheet and after
charge-sheet were rejected. Applicant is an innocent person. He
:3:
Order on BA No.566/24
has been falsely implicated for the act of his senior officers. He is
the sole bread earner of his family. His father is suffering from
cancer. He is behind bar since 10.11.2023. Thus, he is in custody
for near about 5 months. Investigation is complete. No purpose
would be served by keeping him behind bar. Hence, on these
amongs ground Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant be released on bail. In support of his contention, Ld.
Advocate for the applicant relied upon the authority of the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the case of Anita
Shankar Kirdat Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Bail Application
No.3363 of 2022, wherein it is observed that, ‘prolonged period
incarceration, applicant is entitle for bail.’
7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP objected the bail application on the ground
that, prima facie concern of the applicant is established. There is
documentary evidence on record to show that during 12.05.2023
to 09.08.2023 amount of Rs.17,45,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen
Crores Forty Five Lakhs only) was transferred from the account of
FE to the account of applicant. He has prepared false bank
statements and e-mail to the FE. There is a record to show that
applicant has done trading and suffered losses during the same
period. He has also given amount of Rs.15,17,156/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six only)
to his colleagues. He has admitted his act and transferred Rs.1
Crore to the account of FE. In such circumstances, when prima
facie concern of the applicant with the alleged huge financial
scam is established, he is not entitle for grant of bail. Hence, it is
submitted that the application filed by the applicant for grant of
bail be rejected.

:4:
8.

Order on BA No.566/24
On perusal of record it reveals that, earlier bail applications
filed by the applicant before charge-sheet and after charge-sheet
were rejected on merit. Now, Ld. Advocate for the applicant has
not shown the change in circumstance as such to consider this
bail application of the applicant. Record reflects that the applicant
has committed misappropriation of huge amount to the tune of
Rs.16,43,79,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Forty Three Lakhs
Seventy Nine Thousand only) and caused losses to the FE where
he was working.

9.

Prima facie concern of the applicant with the alleged huge
financial scam / offence is thus established. Nature of offence is
quite serious. Interest of large number of people is involved. It is
well settled legal preposition that, “the economic offences having
deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offence
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
10.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that witnesses in this
case were colleagues of applicant and therefore, if the applicant
would be released on bail, there is every possibility that he may
tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Here it is pertinent to
note that the applicant is not incarcerated for prolonged period.
Moreover, it is also pointed out that the applicant has no
permanent address. He was residing on rental basis. Therefore, if
the applicant would be released on bail, possibility that he may
flee away from justice cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances,
considering the different facts in the case in hand, with high
:5:
Order on BA No.566/24
respect to my command, it is to be mentioned that, the ruling/
observations in the judgement relied upon by the Ld. Advocate
for the applicant cannot be made applicable to this case.
Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the
applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Hence, the order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.566 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant Abhishek Gangaram Mahadik in connection with C.R.
No.58 of 2023 registered with EOW, Unit IV, Mumbai (C.R.
No.594 of 2023 registered with Sahar Police Station) against the
present Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 409,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby
rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.566 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 04/04/2024
Mumbai
sd/(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 04/04/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 04/04/2024
:6:
Order on BA No.566/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
04.04.2024 at 4.53 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
04.04.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
04.04.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
04.04.2024