:1:
Order on BA No.307/24
MHCC020020952024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.70 of 2023
Anil Babulal Chokhara
]
Age : 41 years, Occ : Business
]
Residing at F-2, 101, Morarji Residency,
]
Sanpada, Sector-17, Navi Mumbai-400 705.
]
(Presently in Judicial Custody at Arthur Road ] Applicant/
Central Prison)
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Sujit Sahoo for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate C. K. Talekar along with Ld. Advocate Rohit Rajbhor for
Intervenor / Original complainant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 29th February, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Anil Babulal Chokhara resident of Sanpada Navi Mumbai, under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
regular bail.

:2:
2.

Order on BA No.307/24
A case being C.R. No.70 of 2023 registered with EOW (C.R.
No.721 of 2023 registered with Chembur Police Station) against
the present Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474 r/w Section 120-B 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 & 03. The intervention application of informant /
intervenor – Navin Kumar Jain is allowed vide order dated
28.02.2024.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
It is the case of prosecution that, informant was induced on
false promise of securing job to him in bank at the post of ‘peon’
by one Vaibhav. The informant has given his photo, bio-data and
copies of other relevant documents like Aadhar Card, Pan Card
etc. In February 2022, the said Vaibhav informed the informant
that, he has opened bank account in the name of informant at
Punjab and Sindh Bank, branch Masjid Bunder, Mumbai. Again
after some days, he informed the informant that, there are some
difficulties in securing a job in bank for the informant and
therefore, he will arrange for his job as a ‘office boy’ in his
Company. For that purpose, he made the informant to show his
Pan Card and Aadhar Card on video call whereby his information
was verified. In April, 2022, Vaibhav took the informant in
Equitas Small Finance Bank at Vashi. Vaibhav obtained pass book,
debit card, cheque book of the informant for the account which
was opened in the said bank and also obtained signatures of the
informant on blank cheques in the cheque book. Thereafter, he
:3:
Order on BA No.307/24
did not secure job for the informant and avoided to contact. His
phone numbers were switched off. Informant realized that, he has
been cheated.
5.

Informant enquired about the bank accounts which were
opened by the said Vaibhav. All the accounts were closed. In
February 2023, informant received a letter from GST Office that
he being Director of Magic Royal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., is liable to pay
delinquent tax. Informant came to know that, the accused
Vaibhav and his partners in crime have forged his signatures,
prepared false documents showing him to be a Director of Magic
Royal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. and thereby, made transactions in the
fabricated bank accounts with the help of forged signatures of the
informant for unlawful gain and to delinquent tax towards the
State of Maharashtra to the tune of Rs.23,99,19,500/- (Rupees
Twenty Three Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Five
Hundred only). Therefore, informant approached the police and
lodged report on 22.12.2023.

6.

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

7.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant is
an innocent person. He has not been named in the F.I.R. It is
pointed out that the applicant came to be arrested on 17.01.2024.
He was not given a copy of ground of arrest and arrest memo at
the time of his arrest. He was produced before Court on
18.01.2024. Copy of arrest memo (Exhibit No.-E) along with
:4:
Order on BA No.307/24
other relevant documents in remand application are produced on
record. Exhibit No.C is the arrest form wherein it is mentioned
that the arrested person was told about the reason of arrest.
8.

Further it is argued that, the applicant does not fall within
the exceptional category under Section 437 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 where bail cannot be granted.
Moreover, the issue involved is in respect of evasion of goods and
service tax which would come under the purview of The
Maharashtra GST Act for which Investigating Officer has no
authority or power to deal with. As per the legal provision,
General Laws do not prevail over Special Law. Various provision
of Law to that effect are quoted in application and also in the
argument. Complaint does not reflect in what manner offence
was committed and the concern of the applicant. The main
accused is at large against whom no action has been taken.

9.

It is pointed out that, in relations with the breach under The
Maharashtra GST Act, it is not necessary to register the F.I.R.
Provisions in The Maharashtra GST Act does not attract such
criminal action. As per Section 134 of The Maharashtra GST Act,
no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under
this Act except the previous sanction of the commission. Subject
matter of the alleged crime revolves around the evasion of tax
liability which is already being investigated by The Maharashtra
GST Authorities and therefore, there can be no second F.I.R. Even
otherwise, there is vast delay in lodging report which ultimately
proved to be fatal to the prosecution case. Arrest of the accused is
against the rule of law. There is non compliance of Section 41-A
:5:
Order on BA No.307/24
of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
10.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that the first
informant is a real culprit, who has filed F.I.R. to escape liability
and action by The Maharashtra GST Authorities. No amount is
recoverable from Magic Royal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. as it has supplied
the goods with invoices and thereby no tax benefit was derived.
Moreover, when the concern of the applicant is not shown, no
element of cheating or further offences can be attributed to him.
To support his argument Ld. Advocate for the applicant relied
upon following authorities on each point as quoted below :
Special Law prevails over General Law :
1.

Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in CRM-M38352-2014.

2.

Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others reported
in (2021) 12 SCC 674.

3.

Prasanna Karunakar Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra reported
in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2335 of 2022.

4.

Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan Vs. M/s. Binani Cement
Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2014) 3 SCR-1.

5.

Ashish Bhalla Vs. State & Anr. Reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine Del 5818.
Second investigation on the same fact
6.

T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC
181.
Gross delay in registering the F.I.R.

7.

Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in
2014(2) SCC 1
8.

Chanchalpati Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and another
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446.

9.

Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033.
Ground of arrest in writing
10. Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1244.
11. D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 (1) SCC
:6:
Order on BA No.307/24
416.
Compliance of Section 41 and 41A
12. Sandeep Kumar Vs. State reported in 2019 SCC OnLine
11901.
13. Santender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 825.
14. Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhad & Anr., reported in
(2023) 8 SCC 632.
15. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273.
16. Narendra Amrutlal Patel and Anr. reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine Bom 6528.
17. Chanda Deepak Kochhar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 72.
Company has not been named as an accused
18. S. K. Goyel and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr reported
in Cr. M. P. No.750 of 2021.
19. Kallar Harikumar Vs. Amritha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., reported
in 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 561.
20. Dilip Hariramani Vs. Bank of Baroda reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 457.
21. Vasantha Kumar Ayyavu Palanichamy Vs. SEBI reported in Cr.
O. P. No.16374 of 2022 and Cri. M. P. No.9487 of 2022.
Offence under Section 420
22. Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr reported in 2010
CR1 L. J. 2223 (SC).
On Bail
23. Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 16
SCC 14.
24. State of Kerala Vs. Raneef reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784.
25. Dattaram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2018)
3 SCC.

11.

Per contra, Ld. SPP submitted that the prima facie concern of
the applicant with the alleged offence is evident from the
material collected during investigation. Statement of witnesses
reflects that the applicant channelized the process of transfer of
the amount towards the consideration of gold bars to the bank
:7:
Order on BA No.307/24
account no.7208254412. He has himself made transactions from
the address of said bank account for sale and purchase of gold
bars. Sim card seized from the mobile of applicant are found to
be standing in the name of other persons and the applicant was in
contact with them in respect of gold bars of sale and purchase
transactions. They have hatched conspiracy and thereby, sort out
easy pray like the informant, who are uneducated and from
economically backward class. The applicant and other accused
have forged various documents and pretended that the informant
is Director of Magic Royal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Company to the
witnesses. He is involved in the transaction since 2021 to 2023
and duped tax amount to the tune of Rs.23,99,19,500/- (Rupees
Twenty Three Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Five
Hundred only). It is revealed during investigation that, the
applicant made transactions with other four Companies by using
the aforesaid fake bank account and transferred the amounts in
crores. Further it is pointed that, the nature of investigation is
vast. Other accused are still absconding. The material in the form
of mobile sim cards, documents related to bank accounts and
other documents, stamp and seals of the Company are to be
recovered and verified. Investigation is at pre-mature stage. The
applicant is the prime accused in another offences which are filed
against him vide C.R. No.93/15 of EOW for the financial scam to
the tune of Rs.304 Crores, RC-01/E-2016/CBI/EOW/MUMBAI for
the financial scam to the tune of Rs.1593 Crores, Complaint case
no.9/17 in ECIR/MBZO/05/2016 for the financial scam of Rs.304
Crores. In such circumstances, if the applicant would released on
bail, there is every possibility that he may tamper with the
:8:
Order on BA No.307/24
prosecution evidence. Hence, it is requested that the application
filed by the applicant for grant of bail be rejected.
Reasons 12.

On perusal of record it reveals that, apparently the applicant
is not named in the F.I.R. But at the same time, modus operandi
adopted by accused to commit offence is to be taken into
consideration. Whereby, it is difficult for the common people or
the person / victim, who were sort out as an easy pray for
commission of offence like this, to identify them/ culprit, who
played role behind the curtain. It is not really possible for a
person, who is uneducated, belongs to economically backward
class to ascertain intention on part of offenders, who caught them
in honey trap with an inducement to provide them job.
Inducement as to providing job to a common person, who would
be in badly need of the job for his survival, makes the person
blind. Similarly, informant who appears to be an unemployed at
relevant time followed the instructions blindly given by the
offender. Even though, applicant is not named in the F.I.R.,
certainly, he played role at back stage/ in secret, in commission of
offence and thereby his concern with the alleged Company is
shown. Investigation material produced on record reflects that
the applicant is involved and made various transactions of sale
and purchase of gold through the Magic Royal Bullion Pvt. Ltd.
Company. Prima facie statement of witnesses recorded during the
investigation reflects the role played by him in commission of
serious economic offence. Considering the course of transaction,
applied to secure unlawful gain, it is apparent that the offence
:9:
Order on BA No.307/24
allegedly committed would not exclusively fall under the purview
of The Maharashtra GST Act. Rather it has nothing to do with
plain delinquent of tax. It is prima facie shown that to secure
unlawful gain, with dishonest intention since inception, accused /
applicant acted in a manner that to induce victims, forged
signatures, fabricated the documents, and during the course of
action committed forgery which purports to give authority to
transfer valuable security. All these acts were committed during
the same course of transaction and therefore, it can not be said
that, the offence is only related to delinquent tax under The
Maharashtra GST Act. Therefore, there is no question of second
F.I.R.
13.

The Investigating Agency/ prosecution clarified that, the
case in hand would not fall into the category where Section 41-A
of Cr.P.C. would get attracted. Charge under Section 467(1),
467(2), 474(2) of the Indian Penal Code are punishable upto
imprisonment of life. Therefore, steps to be taken for the
investigation in offences punishable upto 7 years are not
mandatory in the present case. Even then, Investigating Agency
have followed all the steps as per the provisions of Law and Ld.
Magistrate has verified it as per the provision Section 50A(4) of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereby custody of the
applicant is authorized.

14.

This Court has carefully gone through the papers of
investigation. Prima facie there remains no doubt in respect of
the veracity of the allegations in the F.I.R. Circumstances relevant
to the occurrence itself clarify the reason for delay in lodging
:10:
Order on BA No.307/24
report. The applicant and the informant has no personal concern
with each other and therefore, there is no scope of false
implication. What reveals from the record is that, the applicant is
one of the brain behind the operation for commission of offence
to secure unlawful gains by duping not only the Government but
also public at large. It appears to be a pre-planned, well designed
conspiracy. The contents of the F.I.R. and the prima facie evidence
collected during the course of investigation fortify the case of
prosecution. Other accused are still behind the curtain and their
actual identity is not yet revealed. In such circumstances, if the
applicant would be released on bail, it would stall the
investigation to prejudice of the Investigating Agency.
15.

It is a settled Law by the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court through the case of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and in the case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that, ‘economic
offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence
having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country.’
16.

In respect of judgments relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for
the applicant, with great respect to my command, it is to be
mentioned that, ‘there can be no quarrel with the prepositions /
law settled by the verdict of the Hon’ble Superior Courts.

:11:
Order on BA No.307/24
Accordingly, every aspect is dealt with and found in consonance
with the Law.’ Prima facie no irregularities found in following
procedure
while
investigating
the
matter
nor
there
is
misapplication of provisions of law.
17.

Thus, this Court has considered every aspect relevant for the
consideration of bail application. The nature of accusation, prima
facie evidence along with severity of the punishment indicates
that, thorough investigation is required to be done. If the
applicant would released on bail, there is every possibility that he
may tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee away from
justice. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view
that the applicant is not entitle for the relief claimed. Hence, the
order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.307 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant Anil Babulal Chokhara in connection with C.R. No.70
of 2023 registered with EOW (C.R. No.721 of 2023 registered
with Chembur Police Station) against the present Applicant for
the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469,
471, 473, 474 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
is hereby rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.307 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 29/02/2024
Mumbai
(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 29/02/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 29/02/2024
:12:
Order on BA No.307/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
01.03.2024 at 10.22 a.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
29.02.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
29.02.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
01.03.2024