B.A.995/2022
MHCC020056302022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 995 OF 2022.
IN
C.R. NO. 26 OF 2022.
Maansingh Kumar @ Pradeep Singh Nirwan
… Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of L. T. Marg Police Station,
Vide C.R.No. 26/2022)
…Respondent.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. A. A. Siddiqui a/w Ld. Adv. Jitendra Gupta
for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijit Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Aditya Iyer for Intervener.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 06TH JULY, 2022
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Maansingh Kumar @
Pradeep Singh Nirwan being accused in C.R.No. 26/2022 registered
Page 1 of 7
B.A.995/2022
with L. T. Marg Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 417, 418, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) seeks bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.
In the month of January 2021 a company owned by one
Nimish Umesh Shah engaged into a business of selling raw cotton
through one Iqbal Khan called the informant and it was decided that
the purchase the gray cotton would be on the condition that 10% of the
cost will be paid in advance and the remaining amount would be paid
30 days thereafter. However, the said condition of contract was
thereafter revised and the informant agreed to supply raw cotton upon
condition of 20% of advance payment. Accordingly, a draft contract was
mailed to the informant and thereafter the informant duly supplied such
goods to the sum of Rs.2,07,93,882/, but payment to that effect was
not done by the said company.
3.
The applicant/accused is arrayed as accused No. 3 and is
shown as Sales Manager of the said company i.e. M/s. Max Global
Impex Exporters of High Fashion Garment and Fabrics. Accordingly,
son of Mr. Nimish Shah and he himself in order to cross verify, the
company and therefore had visited its office at Kamla Mills Compound,
where they met the said individual namely Iqbal Khan, he introduced
the informant and his son to one Ujjal Dey and other two individuals
namely
the
applicant/accused
and
Robin
Chakraborti.
Since,
28.01.2021 the informant supplied goods to the alleged company M/s.
Max Global Impex Exporters of High Fashion Garment and Fabrics and
Page 2 of 7
B.A.995/2022
accordingly until February 2021 the bills were duly paid. Thereafter,
the said company qua the applicant/accused secured confidence of the
informant and further placed bulk orders. Thereafter, no such payment
was made and the company office was found to be locked in the month
of May 2021. Also, the accused persons qua the employees and the
owner were found to be absconding and upon visit the said office
premises, it was discovered that almost 20 other suppliers were also
cheated. Applicant/accused posed himself as Sales Manager and had
absconded and was not available or traced out. The applicant/accused
also represented him as one of the director of the alleged company but
later it was also found that it was sole proprietorship firm.
Thus,
offence was registered under Section ibid and thereafter the
applicant/accused was found at Rajasthan and was staying there, by
hiding his identity and it was not Maansingh Kumar but his true name
was Pradeep Singh Nirwan. Thereafter, he was put under arrest.
4.
Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant is mere director and actual employee of the said company and
was working as a Sales Manager. Further, the FIR does not disclose any
such role or reason for arraying the applicant/accused. It is further
stated that, the entire matter is governed under sale of goods act and
the informant is an unpaid seller. Therefore, this being a civil dispute
no criminal liability can be casted upon the applicant/accused. Hence,
the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlargement of the
applicant/accused on bail.
5.
Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. It is
Page 3 of 7
B.A.995/2022
categorically stated that, the sum involved in the crime is yet to be
recovered. Further, invoices sent by the informant have been traced
and receipts pertaining to transportation of such cloth, taken by the
applicant/accused have been recovered.
letterheads etc. are also recovered.
Also, cheques, stamps,
The quantum of monetary sum
involved in the present crime is high and at this juncture and stage of
investigation it is shown upto Rs.6,24,00,000/. Also, investigation is
under progress and considering the monetary sum involved in the crime
the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
6.
Ld. Advocate for intervener states that, in primafacie the
role of applicant/accused alongwith the coaccused has been well
discovered by the sleuth of L. T. Marg Police Station and the
applicant/accused is a part and link in chain of the entire syndicate. It
has further revealed that, alongwith the complainant, other traders also
have been cheated by the applicant/accused, using fake identities and
false designations.
Further it is categorically stated that, the
applicant/accused has not denied for the transaction and therefore, in
view of the same the Ld. Advocate for intervener also prayed for
rejection of application.
7.
Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant, Ld. Advocate for
Intervener and Ld. APP for the State. Perused application, reply and
case laws relied by the parties.
8.
On meticulous survey of the case record it evinces to me
that, the company under the name and style M/s. Max Global Impex
Exporters of High Fashion Garment and Fabrics had raised their
Page 4 of 7
B.A.995/2022
demand pertaining to supply of cloth since 28.01.2021 and it was duly
supplied. Further, prosecution has placed a chart which ranges from
04.03.2021 until 07.04.2021 wherein the said chart propels for the
invoice received from the applicant/accused qua his company and the
total balance amount is shown to be Rs.02,07,93,882/. Thus, in this
regard no any explanation with regard to payment has been advanced
by and on behalf of the applicant/accused.
On the contrary the
applicant/accused terms the entire matter to be of civil nature and in
the guise of the same admits for such transaction. To buttress his
contentions the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has filed and relied
on the case law in the matter of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s
NEPC Indian Ltd and others, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2780,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that,
“While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely
civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on
account of a prevalent impression that civil law
remedies are time consuming and do not adequately
protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes also,
leading
to
irretrievable
break
down
of
marriages/families. There is also an impression that if
a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure though criminal prosecution should
be deprecated and discouraged.”
9
Considering the conspectus of the aforesaid case law I do
humbly submit that the said case is distinctive on facts as the payment
in the instant case is on and behalf of the applicant/accused and apart
Page 5 of 7
B.A.995/2022
from the same as stated hereinabove the applicant/accused has
apparently admitted for such transaction.
10.
Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the primafacie case exists or
not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits
of prosecution case.
11.
Factum the misrepresentation or fake identity is part and
parcel which requires adjudication during the course of trial but in
primafacie the applicant/accused has failed to explain any such fact
pertaining to the each payment. The Ld. Prosecutor has categorically
stated that, there is no recovery till date and considering the quantum
of amount involved in the crime it would be inappropriate to enlarge
the applicant/accused on bail. Thus, in this regard, the role of the
applicant/accused in connivance with that of the coaccused cannot be
negated. In the back of the aforesaid facts, I hold that this is not a fit
case for grant of bail. Hence, order infra :
ORDER
Bail Application No. 995/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 06.07.2022
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.07.08
17:11:34 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 06.07.2022
Transcribed on : 06.07.2022
HHJ signed on : 08.07.2022
Page 6 of 7
B.A.995/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
08.07.2022
05.10 p.m.
Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
06.07.2022
of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
08.07.2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
08.07.2022
Page 7 of 7