MHCC020000902024

IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.11 OF 2024

Manoj Kupindar Pawar
Age 43 years, Occ : Self Employed,
Residing at Room No.5, Chawl No.8,
Indira Nagar, Mahul Road, Vashi,
Chembur, Mumbai 400074. … Applicant

– Versus

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of DCB CID vide CR.No. 74/2023) (corresponding C.R.No.689/2023, Chembur Police Station) … Respondent

Appearance :Advocate Mithilesh Mishra for the applicant.
A.P.P. Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State.
Adv Sunny Singh for the Intervenor.

CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT ROOM No. 30. DATED : 16/01/2024
ORDER

This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with CR.No. 74/2023 registered with DCB CID Mumbai (corresponding C.R.No.689/2023, Chembur Police Station) for the commission of offences punishable u/sec.170,171,419,420,465,466,468,506,34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

2.It is alleged by the applicant / accused that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in custody since 26.11.2023, He has fully co-operated to the investigating officer.
The applicant has deep roots in Society. He has undergone custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be seized or recovered from the possession of the accused. The applicant / accused is permanent resident of his given address. Therefore, there is no point in keeping accused behind bars till conclusion of trial. Therefore she prayed for releasing her on bail.

3.The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is released on bail it will affect on the collection of evidence. There is
material evidence against the applicant / accused. If accused is released on bail he will flee away from the justice. There is material evidence to show the involvement of the accused in the present crime. If the accused is released on bail there are chances of threatening of prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence, prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.

4.Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard the ld. Advocate for the applicant, and ld. APP for the State.

5.It is the case of the prosecution that one Mr. Vinay Vishnu Jadhav lodged report that in the year 2019 he came in contact with the applicant / accused. At that time accused informed him that Mr. Ganesh
Chavan is IPS officer and relative of applicant / accused. He also informed that said Ganesh Chavan is working as under cover officer. He introduced informant with said Ganesh Chavan, they exchange mobile numbers with each other. The applicant Manoj and said officer Ganesh Chavan informed the informant that one Mr. Suresh Chavan is cousin brother of Ganesh Chavan and said Suresh Chavan is working as IFS. The applicant and said Ganesh Chavan informed to the informant that many IAS and IPS officers are in contact with them and Ganesh Chavan will help for any work with the central government department. In the month of January 2021 the informant received phone call of Ganesh Chavan, said Ganesh Chavan informed him that he can do any work pending with central government and also he can do any work related to transfer of police officials. He asked the informant to meet him at D.G. Office Mumbai, when reached there Ganesh Chavan informed him that he is proceeded to Vashi with his senior officers. He asked the informant to meet him at Vashi. When the informant reached at Vashi, said Ganesh Chavan alighted from Honda City Car. Said car bears name plate of Government of Maharashtra. The applicant Manoj also came there. It was noticed by the informant that the profile picture of Whats App of Ganesh Chavan was having emblem (logo) of NIA. On Linked In profile bears his photo and emblem of IPS.

6.One Mr. Manoj Chavan stated to the informant that one Rajesh Chaturvedi was the director in Allahabad Bank and he is interested to work as a director in Bank of Baroda. At that time the informant stated to said Manoj Chavan that said Ganesh Chavan is IPS officer and he will help for the said work. Accordingly the informant asked Ganesh Chavan, that whether he can help for the appointment of
director in Bank of Baroda. At that time Ganesh Chavan consented for the same and asked the informant to meet him at Vashi. Accordingly, in the month of February 2021 the informant, Mahesh Chavan met at one hotel at Vashi. He assured that he will help for the said appointment as director at Bank of Baroda. After few days said Ganesh Chavan made phone call to the informant and demanded Rs.1 crore for the said appointment as director at Bank of Baroda. The informant further informed about the said demand to Mahesh Chavan. When Mahesh Chavan stated about his inability to pay such huge amount, Ganesh Chavan again called them to meet at Vasundhara Hotel, Vashi, he assured that said appointment as director will be made. It was agreed to pay 90 lakhs after the work is done. In the month of March 2021 Ganesh Chavan approached to Rajesh Chaturvedi, they exchange their mobile numbers. Rajesh Chaturvedi was assured about the work of his appointment as director. On 7.5.2021 Ganesh Chavan demanded Rs.25,000/- for the work of Rajesh Chaturvedi. Accordingly informant deposited Rs.25,000/- in the bank account as per the demand of Ganesh Chavan. Thereafter Ganesh Chavan demanded Rs.15,000/-. On 25.5.2021 Mahesh Chavan handed over Rs.5 lakhs to the informant directing informant to pay the same to Ganesh Chavan. Accordingly, informant paid Rs.5 lakhs to Ganesh Chavan. The applicant Manoj was also present there. The applicant informed to trust on Ganesh Chavan
and to pay the demanded amount to him. On the same date Mahesh Chavan transferred Rs.2 lakhs to the account of the informant and the informant deposited said amount in the account of H.R. Worldwide Solution as per the demand of Ganesh Chavan. Thereafter Mahesh Chavan again transferred Rs.2 lakhs to the informant and Mahesh Chavan transferred the same to the account of H.R. Worldwife Solution at the request of accused Ganesh Chavan. Again Mahesh Chavan paid cash of Rs.3 lakhs to the informant and informant paid in turn the same to Ganesh Chavan.

7.On 6.7.2021 Rajesh Chaturvedi transferred Rs.5 lakhs in the account of Girish Verma for making payment to accused Ganesh Chavan. In September 2021 Ganesh Chavan forwarded photocopy of
one letter alleged to have signature of Finance Minister on Whats App of the informant. On 22.9.2021 Ganesh Chavan demanded Rs.10 lakhs accordingly said amount was paid by Rajesh Chaturvedi. Total amount received by Ganesh Chavan is Rs.30,25,000/-. After some days list of Board of Directors of Bank of Baroda was published. In the said list there was no name of Rajesh Chaturvedi. On inquiry with Ganesh Chavan, he informed that his name will be there in the second list. No such second list was published and therefore it was revealed that the informant and his associates have been cheated. Therefore, the informant, Rajesh Chavan, Mahesh Chavan asked for the refund of amount. It was also informed that the applicant has accepted Rs.10 lakhs, both of them refused to return the amount. They also threatened that they will rope the informant and his associates in the criminal prosecution. On 10.03.2023 Mahesh Chavan approached to Ganesh Chavan with demand of return of money. He issued letter stating that he has received Rs.30 lakhs from Mahesh Chavan and Rajesh Chavan and he will return the same in September 2023. In spite of same no amount was returned. It was revealed that Ganesh Chavan is not IPS officer. Accordingly report is lodged and offence is registered.

8.The present applicant / accused has been arrested on 26.11.2023. In the reply of the prosecution it is stated that in the investigation police have recovered laptop, mobile handset, one car, name plate, emblems of Indian flag and National emblem. It was revealed that Ganesh Chavan has displayed his photos as IPS officer on social media. In the investigation it is revealed that the applicant Manoj
introduced accused Ganesh Chavan as his close relative working as IPS officers. The applicant was also involved in accepting the amount by deceiving the witnesses. It is the contention of the prosecution that the present applicant had threatened witnesses to rope them in false cases. The ld advocate for the applicant relied upon the judgments

1. Lalita Kumar V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
2. Arnesh Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
3. Joginder Kumar’s V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260.
4. Munawar Farooqui V/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.62 of 2021.

9.I have gone through the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment. The first information report is lodged on 26.11.2023. The period of alleged offence is 1.9.2019 to 10.3.2023. The present
applicant / accused was arrested on 26.11.2023. The ld advocate for the applicant disputed the compliance of Section 41-A. On perusal of the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the ld Magistrate it appears that the issue of Section 41-A has been considered by the ld Magistrate. The ld Magistrate has observed that said point of non compliance of Section 41 was not raised in the first remand. It is further observed that in first remand police submitted the checklist and the reasons mentioned therein show custody of accused is necessary. Therefore, the ld Magistrate held that the question of illegal arrest does not arose from the record. It appears that the grounds for arrest were mentioned in the checklist. The checklist appears to have been filed. Therefore said point has been considered by the ld Magistrate in accordance with Section 41 of Cr.P.C.

10.In the present case the applicant / accused has been arrested on 26.11.2023. There are material allegation against the applicant / accused that he induced the informant and witnesses by
impersonation of Ganesh Chavan as IPS officer. It is alleged that the applicant has also received certain amount from the witnesses. The investigation in the offence is in progress. The accused have threatened the witnesses to rope them in false case. Therefore, there appears to be substance in the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is released on bail he will tamper with the prosecution evidence and there will be threat to the prosecution witnesses. As aforesaid investigation is
in progress. Charge sheet is not yet filed. Hence, under these circumstances the applicant / accused is not entitled to be released on bail. In the result, the application is liable to be rejected. Hence, I pass
the following order :

ORDER

Criminal Bail Application No.11 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off accordingly.

Date : 16.01.2024 Dictated on Transcribed onSigned by HHJ on : 16.01.2024 : 17.01.2024 : 18.01.2024 ( RAJESH A. SASNE ) Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai. 8 B.A. 11/2024 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.” 18/01/2024 3.42 p.m. UPLOAD DATE TIME
J.S. Chavan NAME OF STENOGRAPHER Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A. Room No.) Sasne, Court Room No. 30. Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 16/01/2024 ORDER signed by P.O. on 18/01/2024 ORDER uploaded on 18/01/2024