CRI. BA 298/2024
1
ORDER
MHCC020021622024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 298 OF 2024
( CNR NO.: MHCC02-002162-2024 )
Mr. Pritish Dayaram Mungmode
Aged-40 years, Occupation: Business
R/o. Plot No. 6, Poonam Vihar, Old
Sachayani Building, Dindayal Nagar,
Nagpur Maharashtra440022,
Presently Lodged at Arthur Road Jail
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of E.O.W.,
Unit-5, vide C.R.No.21/2023)
[C.C.T.N.S. No. 332/2023]
…Applicant/Accused
…Respondent/State.
Appearance:Ld. Advocate Pulkit Awasthi for applicant/accused.
Ld. S. P.P. S.V. Kekanis for the State/respondent.
Ld. Advocate Parth Sangharajka for intervener/victim.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
S.M. TAPKIRE (C.R.60)
DATE : 06.03.2024.
CRI. BA 298/2024
2
ORDER
ORDER
1.
This is an application under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) in
connection with the crime vide C.R. No. 21 of 2023 [C.C.T.N.S. No.
332/2023] dated 19.05.2023 registered with respondent/state for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 r/w.34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2.
The respondent/state and intervenor/victim have strongly
opposed to the bail plea of the applicant on various grounds by filing
their written say/submission at Exh-6 and Exh-5 respectively.
3.
Perused the application, plea submissions, grounds raised
therein coupled with the documents placed reliance by the applicant.
Also, perused the written say/objection of respondent/state. Heard Ld.
Advocate for the applicant and the Ld. S.P.P. for respondent/state.
4.
Having heard to the rival parties and considered their
raised submissions contentions objections and record material availed
and the documents enclosed with charge-sheet prima-facie inclined in
impugned crime the applicant, absconded co-accused Shreyas Salao and
other arrested co-accused Arunkumar Singh are involved. The applicant
and co-accused Arunkumar Singh are behind bar. The co-accused
Shreyas Salao is absconded since raising of impugned crime. At the
outset the applicant and absconded accused have jointly preferred
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 574 of 2023. The same is pleased to
rejected by order dated 14.03.2023. Thereon, the impugned crime
CRI. BA 298/2024
3
ORDER
registered on 19.05.2023. The applicant is arrested on 27.06.2023.
Prior to submission of charge-sheet he has raised the bail plea by
Criminal Bail Application No.1714 of 2023. The same is pleased to
rejected by order dated 02.09.2023 principally on the grounds that the
co-accused Shreyas Salao is yet to detected and arrested. The applicant
has admitted the factum of acceptance of deposit/investment amount
from informant and victims to the tune of Rs.18,20,00,000/- by giving
promise assurance to avail smart/huge return benefits amount by
investing the same in his business of dismantling projects. However, not
returned single penny to any victim but, misappropriated huge amount
availed from the said dismantling projects. Though the applicant has
submitted voluntary undertaking. However, whereby, doesn’t show any
bonafide anxiety to return the accepted investment amount. Every
material concern relevant facts circumstance required to be investigated
properly cautiously and seriously. Thereby, doesn’t deserve to have the
relief of liberty. Thereon, the charge-sheet is submitted on 28.09.2023.
Thereupon, the applicant has again raised bail plea before the Ld. Trial
Court by Bail Application No.1546 of 2023. The same is also rejected
06.12.2023.
5.
In the above circumstance the impugned matter raised for
liberty by applicant after submission of charge-sheet by raising plea of
change in the circumstances and while considering his earlier bail plea
the concern relevant required record is not considered properly. As per
record availed with the charge-sheet would reveal he has not
misappropriated any single penny for himself by any manner. However,
the entire invested amount of the informant and victim have been
deposited and disbursed for availing the dismantling projects. Due to
CRI. BA 298/2024
4
ORDER
non-compliance of condition of contract of dismantling projects the
same could not avail, therefore, the entire invested amount is forfeited.
Even his own huge amount is also invested in various projects of
dismantling. Upon cautiously considered the nature of transactions
arose between complainant, victims and them would crystallize the
same just comes under the ambit of civil transactions and by it the
investors would have got right to recover their invested sum. However,
unnecessarily given the colour of criminality. As well as at now
exhaustive investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also
submitted. His earlier bail plea is pleased to rejected principally on the
ground the exhaustive detail minute investigation is required. Moreover,
the Ld. Trial Court has pleased to rejected his bail plea on the ground
that the applicant has admitted the entire facts circumstances of
investment amount from complainant and victim. Prima-facie the
sufficient material record regarding by lured instigated deceived
cheated to them and misappropriated huge amount is availed collected
by the investigation machinery. He has executed certain agreement in
favour of informant and victims just with intention to mislead,
misconceive them in view of grabbing their huge deposits amount. The
same are at this stage of trial unconsiderable unconcerned. The
submission of applicant is also that upon cautiously gone through the
entire record material enclosed with the charge-sheet would reveal
there was no specific clear exact his pre-intention in regard by lured
instigated
abetted
deceived
cheated
to
them
for
grabbing
misappropriating any investment amount. Therefore, as the sufficient
evidence in regard to alleged leveled allegations and crime thereof not
availed and submission of charge-sheet is certainly a most material
considerable appreciable change in circumstance. Thereby, he deserves
CRI. BA 298/2024
5
ORDER
for the liberty.
6.
The respondent and intervener/victim have strongly
opposed to the bail plea raised by the applicant after submission of
charge-sheet. They principally raised the objection that the pre-arrest
bail plea as well as bail plea prior to submission of charge-sheet is
already rejected by this court. Even the Ld. Trial Court has also rejected
his bail plea prior and after submission of charge-sheet against him.
Though the charge-sheet is submitted, however, detail exhaustive
minute investigation is yet to complied. The co-accused Shreyas Salao is
still absconded. He is companion of the applicant. The applicant and
Shreyas Salao as well as co-accused Arunkumar Singh by conspired with
certain dishonest and ill-intention approached to informant Saroj
Bhosale who is the close relatives of Shreyas Salao. They were having
confident clear knowledge about having huge amount with her for
investment. Thereby, by lured instigated prompted to her for having
huge/smart return amount on investment sum, her deposits amount
could grab misappropriate. In execution and persuasion to their plan
they have initially get investment Rs.50,00,000/- and on it given the
smart return/benefit amount Rs.15,00,000/- on said investment.
Thereby, compelled to her to keep faith trust on them. Then time to
time, by giving false unconcern irrelevant information and thereby
giving promise assurance to get availed huge return amount accepted in
all amount Rs.18,20,00,000/- from informant and victims. Though the
certain facts circumstances with regard to allegations plea grievance
levelled against the applicant investigated and submitted charge-sheet.
However, the exhaustive detail minute investigation is yet not
completed. The co-accused is absconded. Though the accused
CRI. BA 298/2024
6
ORDER
Arunkumar Singh filed application for bail and considered allowed his
bail plea. However, with regard to allegations levelled against him his
involvement participation and attribution of role very restricted and
limited part is there. The earlier bail plea of applicant is already rejected
by the Ld. Trial Court and by this court. In the circumstance no any
considerable cognizable appreciable reliable facts circumstance in
regard to change in circumstance put forth raised by him. Merely
submission of charge-sheet would not be most material reason cause
change of circumstance for having liberty. They also raised other
general objections.
7.
In above such circumstance cautiously considered the
entire record material availed raised rival submissions contentions
objections, by it prima-facie inclined the bail plea raised by the
applicant prior to submission of charge-sheet is pleased to rejected on
the concern relevant grounds circumstances that the co-accused is
absconded. The voluntary undertaking raised by the applicant does not
showing clarifying his bonafide anxiety. The record material availed
clarifying about the involvement participation and attribution of specific
clear exact role in regard to commission of the alleged crime. However,
the impugned bail plea raised by the applicant, especially on the ground
of change in circumstance and submission of charge-sheet against him.
Considering the same herewith required to be considered that the plea
submissions grievance reasons causes grounds raised by the applicant,
through his earlier bail plea are already considered substantially.
However, in this matter it is submitted by him that the entire record
material not considered appreciated properly exhaustively and minutely.
As well as the investment amount received in bank account of applicant
CRI. BA 298/2024
7
ORDER
and formulated companies Adwaitaa Iron and Steel Private Ltd and
Popular Espat Industries Ltd are already invested in concern project of
dismantling business. Thereby, no any misappropriation misuse of any
penny is there. However, cautiously gone through the record material
enclosed with the charge-sheet, thereby, prima-facie inclined the certain
facts circumstance in regard to having the amounts of investment as
well as transfer of amount by applicant in the name of absconded
accused Shreyas Salao, his father and other bank accounts of him and
the amount directly accepted by the applicant upon selling the scrap
availed from dismantling projects, by such circumstance prima-facie
inclined about the specific clear exact intention of applicant in view of
grabbing the amount of investment without giving any information
benefit/return amount to the victims. In that regard sufficient evidence
material is availed. The applicant had submitted his voluntary
undertaking in earlier bail matter. However, thereafter he did nothing in
that regard. In present matter he does not rely on it and given any
clarification about it. Thus, in all such eventualities though the chargesheet is submitted and on relying it vehemently raised the plea that the
same is change in circumstance. However, considering the record
material availed with the charge-sheet, whereby, prima-facie does not
clarifying indicating any justifiable considerable appreciable cause
circumstance ground reason in view of change in circumstance for
having liberty to him. It is also required to be considered appreciated
that the companion of applicant Shreya Salao is yet absconded. With
regard to allegations levelled against him the concern relevant material
facts circumstance are yet to clarified detected and investigated. The
record material availed itself clarifying the applicant is main culprit
architect and designer of impugned crime and was having dishonest
CRI. BA 298/2024
8
ORDER
intention by roots to grab misappropriate the huge amounts. In the
circumstance it is my humble view and considered opinion that he does
not deserve to have the liberty. With this passed the following order.
:ORDER:
1.
The present Criminal Bail Application No.298 of 2024 is hereby
rejected and disposed of accordingly.
2.
The respondent/state to take note of this order.
Dictated and pronounced in open court
Sd/(S.M. Tapkire)
Addl. Sessions Judge
Sessions Court,
Mumbai. C.R. 60
Dictated on
Directly typed on
transcription of Part dictation on
Date of sign
:
:
:
:
06.03.2024
06.03.2024
07.03.2024
12.03.2024
CRI. BA 298/2024
9
ORDER
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
12/03/2024, 4.25 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mr. Prasad S. Pednekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room No.)
HHJ S.M. Tapkire,(C.R.No.60)
Addl. Sessions Judge.,City Civil & Sessions
Court, Mumbai.
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
06.03.2024
Order signed by P.O. on
12.03.2024
Order uploaded on
12.03.2024