BA No.1781/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1781 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020096192022 )
Dinesh Amarnath Pandey
Age: 44 Yrs, Occ: Not mentioned
R/o: C44/217 Galli No.17 Extension
Garhi Mendu Bhajanpura,
North East Delhi 110053
…Applicant/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of Pantnagar P.Stn
Vide C.R. No.138/2016)
…Respondent/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Arvind Singh Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Mrs. Ashwini Raykar for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE,
ADDL. S.JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 10/08/2022.
ORDER
1.
This is an application filed by applicant/accused
Dinesh
Amarnath Pandey for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.1973, in Crime
No.138/2016 U/sec. 420,406,465,467,471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code
registered at Pantnagar Police Station, Mumbai.
Facts in brief are as under :
2.
Complainant Atishdas Kishordas serving in ICICI Bank lodged
report that in the year, 2013 one Shri. Prasad Shetty and his wife
Pournima Shetty had applied for home loan to ICICI bank, Ghatkopar
BA No.1781/2022
..2..
Order
Branch Mumbai, to purchase flat at Andheri. Agreed consideration was
Rs.99,90,000/. After scrutiny of the documents, loan was sanctioned to
them. Ijjat Haji Ali Ajgar was owner of alleged flat. Prasad Shetty and
his wife did not repay the loan amount to the bank and hence, they
started follow up. It was revealed that Ijjat Haji Ali never entered into
agreement of sale with Prasad Shetty and he is residing in the same flat.
Therefore, complainant lodged report to the Police Station. It is
registered as Crime no.138/2016. Based on these allegations, offence
came to be registered against applicant and other co accused.
3.
Advocate Arvind Singh for the applicant submitted that accused is
innocent and has not committed any offence. He never visited the
complainant bank and applied for home loan. There is delay of 3 years
in lodging FIR and now chargesheet is filed. Another coaccused, Anant
Pratap Tejbahadur, who was working as Business Sales Manager of
complainant Bank is released on bail. Applicant is in jail from
23.3.2022. No purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the
jail. Hence, he prayed to release the applicant on bail.
4.
Mrs. Ashwini Raykar, APP for the State strongly opposed the
application on various grounds and prayed for rejection of bail
application.
5.
I perused the Chargesheet and heard the Advocate for the
applicant and A.P.P. for the State. I have gone through the Law laid
down in respect of grant or refusal of bail, in following cases by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court :
1]
Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., 2011 (13) SCALE 107,
BA No.1781/2022
..3..
Order
2]
Moti Ram Vs State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47;
3]
Babu Singh Vs State of U.P., (1978)1 SCC 579;
4]
Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan,
(2009) 2 SCC 281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694,
6]
VivekKumarVs State of U. P., (2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati .Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh .Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
(1978)1 SCC118.
11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar .Vs. Rajesh Ranjan
(2004) 7 SCC 528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh
(2002)3 SCC 98
13]
Puran .Vs. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.
14]
Neeru Yadav .Vs. State of UP,AIR 2015 SC 3703
15]
Sharad Kumar..Vs…C.B.I, MANU/DE/2374/2011
17]
Bhadresh .Vs. state of Bihar , (2016)1SCC 152
18]
Bharat Choudhary .Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77
19]
Munish Bhasin .Vs. State (NCT), (2009)4 SCC 45
20]
Niranjan Singh .vs. Prabhakar Kharote
AIR 1980 SC 785,
21]
State of M.P. .Vs. RamKishna Balothia
AIR 1995 SC 1198
BA No.1781/2022
..4..
Order
22]
Pokar Ram .Vs. State of Raj.AIR 1985 SC 969
23]
Samunder Singh .Vs. State of Raj. AIR 1987 SC 737
24]
Ravindra Saxena .Vs. State of Raj. (2010)1 SCC 684
25]
Pravinbhai Patel .Vs. State of Gujarat (2010)7 SCC 598
26]
Ram Govind Upadhay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 8,
27]
State of Mah. .Vs. Anand Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625,
28]
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani .Vs. State of U.P. (2006)9 SCC 425)
29]
Sushila Aggarwal vs State ( NCT) (2020) 5 SCC 1
30]
Arnab Goswami vs State of Mah. (2020) ALL MR( Cri) 4347
31]
Mohammad Zubair vs State of NCT,Cri.W.P.279/ 2022 (SC)
32]
Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI SLP(Cri) 5191/2021( SC)
Dt.11.7.2022
and considered following factors while deciding this bail application :
(i)
Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii)
Nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)
Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)
Character, Behaviour, Means, Position and Standing of the
accused;
(vi)
Likelihood of the offence being repeated.
(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with
and
(viii) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
BA No.1781/2022
6.
..5..
Order
In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the
Chargesheet. On perusal of the same, it is found that, Prasad Shetty
and his wife Pournima Shetty had applied for home loan to purchase
resale flat of Ijjat Haji Ali Ajgar for Rs.99,90,000/ with some forged
documents and bank sanctioned loan after verifying the same. It was
agreed that Prasad Shetty shall repay the loan amount by monthly
installment of Rs. 1,11,861/ and he paid Rs.23,38,560/ by total 21
installments. Thereafter, he stopped paying the EMI. When bank officers
visited the said flat alleged to be purchased by Prasad Shetty, it is found
that Ijjat Haji Ali Ajgar who is real owner is residing in the said flat. She
stated that she never entered in the agreement of sale with Prasad
Shetty. During the investigation, it is revealed that Rs.95,00,000/ were
transferred to the account of this applicant at Axix Bank. Said account is
in the name of Shubham Enterprises of which applicant is proprietor.
Then, this applicant purchased a plot in the name of his wife and
constructed a house thereon and then it is sold to Ramnaresh Gupta in
the year 2019. Then, from the said amount of sale of house, he
purchased a house in the name of his wife Sarladevi Pandey.
Investigating officer has obtained relevant documents in that respect.
Investigating officer also submitted that this applicant then transferred
Rs.25,00,000/ from his account of Shivam Enterprises to his another
firm Shiva Enterprises on 19.11.2019 and then he again transferred
Rs.25,00,000/ from said account to his third firm Shiva Enterprises on
19.11.2019. And thereafter, he transferred Rs.10,00,000/ from account
of Shiva Enterprises to his other firm Shreya Enterprises on 25.11.2019.
This clearly show prima facie involvement of this applicant in this
offence. Investigating officer stated that investigation about false and
fabricated documents, bank accounts is still going on. Moreover, he
BA No.1781/2022
..6..
Order
submitted that this accused is instead of living in house of his wife, is
frequently changing address and resides in tenanted premise.
Considering huge amount by which complainant bank is cheated,
seriousness and gravity of offence, applicant is not entitled for bail. If he
is released on bail, there is no likelihood of his attending the Court at
Mumbai as he is resident of Delhi. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1781/2022 is rejected and disposed of
accordingly.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 10.08.2022.
: 10.08.2022
: 10.08.2022.
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO MENJOGE
MENJOGE
Date:
2022.08.10
17:10:32 +0530
( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
BA No.1781/2022
..7..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
10.08.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
S.M. MENJOGE, Addl. Judge.,City Civil
& Sessions Court, (C.R.No.17).
Date of pronouncement of Order
10.08.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
10.08.2022
Order uploaded on
10.08.2022