:1:
Order in BA no. 539/23
MHCC020094802023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2023
IN
C.R. NO. 149 OF 2021
Naresh Dhondiram Kadam
Occ : Business
Residing at 1092, A-Wing, Mohan Highland Park,
Badlapur (East), Thane
(presently lodged at Arthur Road Jail)
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Ghatkopar Police Station)
]
]… Respondents
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Mrs. Suvarna Avhad-Vast for the Applicant/Accused.
Ld. SPP Malankar for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 15th July, 2023.
ORAL ORDER
1.

This application is filed by the applicant/accused Naresh
Dhondiram Kadam under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with
Crime No.149 of 2021 registered with Ghatkopar Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”)
and Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
:2:
Order in BA no. 539/23
Depositors Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “M.P.I.D. Act”).
2.

The prosecution case in brief that one Rajesh Shankar Gavhane
informant lodged the complaint application dated 27.03.2021
stating therein that in the year 2018, he was a need of
Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) towards renovation
of his residential house and thus, he approached to the said
Shubharambh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha (hereinafter referred as
“said Patsanstha”) i.e. the Directors namely 1) Dhondiram
Kadam, 2) Naresh Dhondiram Kadam, 3) Vishwas Bhosale, 4)
Kiran Vishwas Bhosale, 5) Shankar Shedge, 6) Ramdas Shedge,
7) Pranali Kulkarni and others for providing him a financial aid.
Before that the Directors and members of the said Patsanstha
informed him from time to time that the interest on the deposit
made by him is going to be credited in his account and they are
going to renew the amount fixed in FDR which have been
matured but on this that count as well as on this pretext they
avoided to give him the sum required. However, in the month of
October 2017, he found office of the said Patsanstha has been
closed. On making communication with the Directors and
members of the said Patsanstha, they all assured him about
refunding his money and also informed that they are going to
change their office in another place. On making inquiry with the
persons related with the said Patsanstha, he came to know that
the fund deposited with the said Patsanstha have been
misappropriated by them. He also reminded them that they have
given him assurance but not keeping the words and thus, since
last 2 years there is no response of the said Patsanstha or it’s body
including the Directors. Thus, according to him, there is cheating
:3:
Order in BA no. 539/23
with him as the sum amounting Rs.29,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Nine Lakhs Forty Thousand only) deposited with said Patsanstha
during
September
2016,
October
2016
came
to
be
misappropriated. Thus, he filed the complaint application.
3.

Upon receiving said complaint application, the crime bearing
No. 149 of 2021 registered with Ghatkopar Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w Section 34 of
IPC and Section 3 of MPID Act against the applicant and others.

4.

The applicant by moving this application denied the allegations
made against him in toto. According to him, though he is working
as Junior Officer or as an agent for the Co-operative Bank, he is
way concern with the Society in question. His duty only to
advertise that bank is giving loan to the needy people. According
to him, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. which is inordinate one
for a period of 5 years. Whenever, the Police have called him in
the year 2022, he visited the same and thus, co-operated with the
investigation. He never tried to escape. The role attributed to him
is very smaller than the other accused involved in the crime and
which have been granted bail. He has no criminal antecedent
nothing is remained to be recovered from him. He is ready to
abide with the condition if any imposed. Thus, on this ground he
prayed for granting him bail on merits as well as parity.

5.

The Prosecution and Investigating Officer both have resisted
this application by filing their joint reply at Exhibit No.02 on
ground that the applicant is the main accused. He along with
other co-accused have not paid loan which is outstanding against
:4:
Order in BA no. 539/23
him. During investigation, it is transpired that the applicant and
other co-accused have misappropriated the sum in deposit and
also it has been used illegally by them and also they caused
cheating to the complainant and others. Beside this another coaccused Ramdas Shedge has stated on stamp paper of Rs.100/contending that applicant has caused cheating. Considering the
allegations and involvement of huge amount, if the applicant
released on bail then there is possibility of tampering with the
investigation as well as threatening to the informant. The
applicant will help the other wanted accused in this crime from
their arrest. Thus, on these grounds, the Prosecution prayed for
rejecting the application.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ld. SPP. In the
6.

light of facts and submissions and record from both side following
points arise for my determination and findings are given for the
reasons mentioned thereunder are as follows:Sr.
No
POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether
the
applicant
Naresh
Dhondiram Kadam is entitled for his
release under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as
prayed?

In the negative.

2.

What Order ?

As per final order.
REASONS
As to point nos. 1 and 2 :
7.

While arguing, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
applicant that out of the total accused allegedly involved in this
crime, they have been released on bail, the copies of which are
:5:
Order in BA no. 539/23
already on record. The investigation is almost over. There is no
explanation as to why there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. There is
nothing on record to show base to the allegations made against
the applicant. The applicant is praying relief on the ground of
merit and as well as parity.
8.

In rebuttal Ld. SPP submitted that the present applicant is
premature one and charge-sheet is filed against the present
applicant. There is every possibility of tampering with the
investigation at the hands of the applicant and if he released then
he will flee away. So in the light of their say, the Prosecution
submitted for rejection of the application.

9.

However, after going through the reply of Investigating
Officer / Ld. SPP it shows that the applicant being one of the
Director of the said Patsanstha has gradually shown the sum of
Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in his
name that too without taking the other Directors in confidence.
Therefore, prima facie it has transpired in the statement of
Account Auditor that said sum has been shown in the name of
applicant as Property Mortgage Loan and even though this aspect
appears misappropriation but no complaint has been lodged
against him. This aspect needs to be kept in mind while deciding
the bail application. Also it shows that he induced the informant
with pleasant hope and gave him non feasible promise about
giving handsome return on the sum invested. Therefore, prima
facie the mala fide intention of the applicant appears in
exaggerated form on the face of the record. It also shows that
investigation of the offences is not yet over, and charge-sheet is
:6:
Order in BA no. 539/23
not filed. The position will be cleared on filing of the chargesheet.
10.

As regard parity ground, though some of the accused have
been released on bail but for the aforesaid reason, i.e. the role
attributed by the applicant he has not made out his case for grant
of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. As such he is not entitled for
the relief. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the negative.

11.

In view of aforesaid reason and findings as above, the
applicant is not entitled for bail as such the application deserves
to be rejected. Hence, Point No.2 is answered as per following
order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No. 539 of 2023 is hereby rejected
2. Accordingly, Respondent/IO to take the note of this order.
3. The present Bail Application No. 539 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
BHALCHANDRA
JOSHI
Date:
2023.07.19
12:57:55 +0530
Date : 15.07.2023.

Directly Dictated on
Draft given on
Signed on
: 15.07.2023.
: 15.07.2023.
: 15.07.2023.

( S. B. Joshi)
Designated Judge and Addl.
Sessions Judge, City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai.

:7:
Order in BA no. 539/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
19.07.2023 at 12.41 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Mrs. G. P. Acharekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. S. B. Joshi
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
15.07.2023
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
15.07.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on
19.07.2023