Cri BA No.49-2024 MHCC020003062024

IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2024

Deepak Prataprai Dani ] …Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ] (At the instance of Dadar Police Station Vide C.R. ] No.192 of 2023)
] …Respondent.

Advocate Kapil Dave for applicant.
APP Pankaj Chavan for the State.
CORAM : SHRI. S.B. PAWAR, THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)

DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2024.

ORDER

The applicant, who is under detention in connection with C.R. No.192 of 2023 registered with Dadar Police Station for offence under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, has filed the present application for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.As per the case of prosecution, the applicant alongwith co- accused Rani Durairaj and Sonali Borse prepared forged LIC policy and availed loan of Rs.30 lakhs from Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch
Prabhadevi, Mumbai. It is alleged that the main accused Rani Durairaj and Sonali Borse were acting as loan agents. They approached the Bank Manager and after gaining his confidence, submitted LIC policies of five co-accused, including the applicant.

Aggregate loan of Rs.1,32,33,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed by the bank against the said LIC policies. The borrowers failed to repay the loan. Therefore, concerned bank manager verified about the policy documents whereupon it was revealed that the policy documents were bogus. The LIC policy No.886100283 purportedly issued in the name of applicant was completely forged as no such policy was issued by LIC to any person.

Accordingly, other policies were either forged or issued by another branch of LIC to other persons or were lapsed policies. Therefore, Mr. Raghav Shambunath Rajan, Bank Manager filed complaint and on its basis FIR came to be registered on 21.04.2023.

3.The applicant contends that he has not committed the alleged offence of forgery.

He personally never made any representation to the bank for loan. The applicant was kept in dark by the main accused Rani Durairaj in relation to the documents of loan. His financial need is used by co-accused to take benefit of loan. They hatched conspiracy, created forged documents and used them as
genuine for the purpose of loan.

The applicant received only Rs.1,50,000/- and he has undertaken to repay the said amount to the bank officer. He is not beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime as the amount of loan is diverted in the account of main accused. He is infact an aggrieved person. Investigation is complete. Therefore, he prays for bail.

4. Prosecution filed reply and opposed the bail on following grounds:

1) Applicant is named in the FIR.

He submitted his Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and other documents for availing loan and he was present in the bank for signing loan documents.

2) The applicant has transferred the amount of loan credited in his account by RTGS to other bank accounts and has received certain amount but has not produced the same.

3) The applicant is not residing on the address given by him to the bank therefore, he has furnished false address to the bank with intention to cheat the bank.

4) After issuance of notice under section 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C., he was absconding and there is possibility that he may flee from justice.

5) The investigation against the other accused is going on.

6) Other offences bearing C.R. No.738 of 2022 for offence under sections 419, 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC at Pant Nagar Police Station and C.R. No.23 of 2011 for offence under section 407, 34 of IPC at Hajira Police Station, Surat, State Gujarat are registered against the applicant.

7) The applicant may help the other co-accused to abscond.

5. Heard learned Advocate Kapil Dave for the applicant, learned APP Pankaj Chavan, for the State and investigating officer API Chaduhary. Learned Advocate for applicant argued that applicant was in financial need, he came in contact with main accused Rani Durairaj and handed over his documents to her. He had received amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which he repaid to the bank. He has not received the remaining amount out of Rs.30 lakhs sanctioned by the bank. Main accused Rani Durairaj is the kingpin of conspiracy and she is in custody.She has forged more than 20 accounts by taking undue disadvantage of financial need of the applicant and other persons. The offence of forgery is not attracted against the applicant.

The charge-sheet does not disclose the intention of the applicant to commit cheating since inception. Therefore, he urged that the application be allowed.

6.Per contra, learned APP submitted that applicant had intention and knowledge of committing offence since beginning and he was actively involved in the transaction of loan.

Huge amount of Rs.1.32 crore is involved. Investigating Officer submits that the amount of Rs.30 lakhs sanctioned by bank was transferred to bogus bank account and the applicant was involved in transferring the said amount. Other similar offences are registered against the applicant. Therefore,
both investigating officer and APP submitted that application be rejected.

7.I have carefully considered submissions of both the sides. Perused documents produced on record. Apart from the FIR, copy of order dated 16.10.2023 in Criminal Bail Application No.2123 of 2023 and copy of charge-sheet is annexed with the application. The earlier bail application of the applicant is rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2023 primarily on the ground that investigation was in
progress and there was prima facie involvement of the applicant in the fraud played upon by the bank.

8.The investigating agency has filed charge-sheet against the applicant and main accused Rani Durairaj. Other co-accused including another prime accused Sonali Borse, who allegedly procured forged LIC policies is yet to be arrested. So far as charge-sheet is concerned, it appears that the applicant contacted main accused Rani Durairaj through one Mandar Tendulkar as he was in need of money and through her, he got sanctioned the loan from the bank.

9.Investigating officer has recorded statements of Mahesh Bharat Jadhav, Tilak Suvarna, Ravindra Band and Vinod Ghore. The statement of Mahesh Jadhav shows that he used to convey main accused Sonali Borse in his car on rent on her request. The statements of Ravindra Band and Vinod Ghore go to show that mule accounts were created in their names to divert the amounts involved in the offence. It prima facie appears from the charge-sheet that the main role in siphoning the crime proceeds through mule accounts is attributed to the co-accused Rani Durairaj and Sonali Borse.

10.As regards the role attributed to the applicant, though the loan of Rs.30 lakhs was sanctioned in his name against LIC policy, the entire amount was transferred by RTGS in another bank accounts and
he received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Mandar Tendulkar in cash.

This indicates that the applicant was not beneficiary of the offence of fraud and main accused Rani Durairaj and Sonali Borse were kingpin of the conspiracy as rightly submitted by learned Advocate for
applicant. It appears that co-accused Sonali Borse who was LIC agent had procured the bogus LIC policies in the name of borrowers and with the help of co-accused Rani Durairaj, after gaining confidence of Bank Manager, they succeeded in sanctioning the loan in favour of the borrowers and received almost entire amount, giving small portions to the borrowers.

11. Learned Advocate for applicant argued that applicant has repaid amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which he received from the loan amount. however, it is not mentioned in the application that amount is repaid. In the written contentions, the applicant has undertaken to repay the said amount to the bank.

The investigation against the applicant is complete as charge-sheet is filed.

In the light of the undertaking given by the applicant in the application and the role attributed to him, in my view, the applicant can be admitted to bail. As regards other two crimes registered against the applicant, if otherwise he is entitled to bail, registration of other crimes can not operate as a bar to enlarge him on bail. Therefore, I pass following order:

ORDER

1.Criminal Bail Application No.49 of 2024 is allowed.

2.The applicant Deepak Prataprai Dani, who is accused in C.R. No.192 of 2023 registered with Dadar Police Station for offence under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, be
released on his executing PR Bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and on furnishing one or two sureties in the like sum on following conditions:

(a)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(b) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence of the prosecution.

(c)The applicant shall not commit similar offence while on bail.

(d)The applicant shall not try to contact the informant or witnesses personally or through anybody till conclusion of trial.

(e)The applicant shall submit documents regarding his permanent address and contact details to the concerned police station and the Court, within seven days of his release and if in future, there is any change in his address or contact details, intimate the same to the concerned police station.

(f) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.

(g) The applicant to comply with undertaking given in para No.6(h) of the application, within 15 days of his release, if already not complied with.

3.Breach of any of the above conditions shall entail the cancellation of the bail.

4.Provisional cash bail of Rs.30,000/- allowed for the period of six weeks.

5.Bail before learned trial Court.

6.Criminal Bail Application No.49 of 2024 is disposed off accordingly.

Date : 25/01/2024 Order Dictated on: 25/01/2024 Transcribed on : 25/01/2024 Checked on : 29/01/2024 Signed on : 29/01/2024 (S.B. PAWAR) Additional Sessions Judge City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL 8 Cri BA No.49-2024 SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” Upload Date 29.01.2024 Upload Time 5.08 p.m. Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR Name of the Judge (With Court SHRI. S.B. PAWAR (CR 58) Room No.) THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE Date of Pronouncement JUDGEMENT /ORDER of 25.01.2024 JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 29.01.2024 P.O. on JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 29.01.2024 on