B.A.978/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 978 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020055302022 )
Sachin Prakashrao Bomble
Age: 41 years, Occ:Service
R/o: Flat No.104, Shatatarka
Apartment RTPS Road,
Surendranagar, Nagpur.
…Applicant/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of Tlaknagar P.Stn.
Vide C.R. No.477/2021)
…Respondent/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Ajit Birajdar Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE, THE ADDL.
JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 25/07/2022.
ORDER
1.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail by
applicant/accused Sachin Prakashrao Bomble
under section 420,406,409,465,467,468
in crime No.477/2021
of IPC, registered at police
station Tilaknagar, Mumbai.
Facts in brief are as under :
2.
Complainant
Hansaben Mistri, lodged report that, she had
received Rs.28,89,795/ and Rs.3,54,827/ from LIC upon death of her
husband. Hence, she wanted to keep in the Fixed deposit. Therefore,
B.A.978/2022
..2..
Order
she alongwith Parimal Shah went to The Greater Bombay Co.Operative
Bank on 3.7.2020. Applicant was bank Manager. She told him that she
want to keep Rs.25,00,000/ in fixed deposit. On 4.4.2020, complainant
went to said bank. Applicant asked her to make F.D. of Rs. 10 lacs and 5
lacs separately. Applicant told her that he personally shall visit her
house. He obtained her signature on one form and told that she would
get F.D. on new account number and took original F.D. receipts from
her. Applicant did not keep whole Rs. 25 lacs in F.D. but gave her F.D.
receipts of only Rs.15 lacs. When she asked for remaining F.D. receipt of
Rs.10 lacs, he stated that he would give her at earliest. Then, he asked
complainant to invest her 5 lacs in Gold scheme and assured her about
Rs.20,000/ per week. He also obtained two blank cheques from her.
When complainant went to bank to encash both these F.D. on maturity,
she came to know that only Rs.1 lac is in her account. Thereafter,
applicant switched off his mobile phone. Hence, complainant lodged
report.
Based on these allegations offence came to be registered against
the accused.
3.
My. Birajdar Advocate for applicant/accused has submitted that
applicant is falsely implicated in this case. No primafacie case is made
out against the applicant. Offences are triable by Magistrate. Dispute is
of civil nature. No purpose would be served by keeping the applicant
behind the bar. Hence, he prayed to release the applicant/accused on
bail.
4.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State has submitted that offence
is serious. Huge amount is to be recovered from applicant. Already two
offences of similar nature are registered against the applicant.
B.A.978/2022
..3..
Order
Therefore, if the accused is released on bail he may pressurize the
prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prayed to reject the application.
5.
I perused case diary 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,(2012) 1
SCC 40;
2]
Moti Ram Vs State of M.P., MANU/SC/0132/1978
(1978) 4 SCC47;
3]
Babu Singh Vs State of U.P., MANU/SC/0059/1978 :
(1978) 1 SCC 579;
4]
Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan,
MANU/SC/8394/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra,
MANU/SC/1021/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 694,
6]
Vivek KumarVs State of U. P., MANU/SC/0890/2000
(2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi,
MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi,
MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.(1978)1 SCC 118.
11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002)3 SCC
598
:
B.A.978/2022
..4..
13]
Puran v. 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
Order
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.
6.
In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the case
diary. On perusal of the same, it is found that, present applicant was
working as Bank Manager and when complainant wanted to deposit
Rs.25 lacs in F.D., he prepared two F.D. Receipts of Rs.15 lacs. He did
not give any F.D. receipt of remaining Rs.10 lacs. He obtained signature
of complainant on two blank cheques and TDS form and another form.
Using those, he withdrawn the amount from bank and when
complainant had been to bank to encash two F.D. on maturity, she came
to know that only Rs.1 lac are there in her account. Rest of money is
withdrawn by this applicant by encashing those F.D. prematurely and
B.A.978/2022
..5..
Order
misappropriated the same. This shows his intention to cheat her since
beginning when she had been to bank to keep her money in F.D. Said
amount is not yet recovered from applicant. He has criminal
antecedents also. For example 1] C.R. No. 459/2019 U/s 420
465,468,471, of Indian Penal Code is
registered at Bhandup Police
Station 2] C.R. 472/2021 U/s 420 465,468,471, of Indian Penal Code
is registered at Tilaknagar Police Station
are registered against him.
This shows that he is habitually committing same kind of offences by
cheating various persons. Considering above facts, gravity and
seriousness of offence, and possibility of repetition of similar kind of
offence in future, applicant is not entitled
for his release on bail.
Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No.978/2022 stands rejected and disposed of
accordingly.
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
MANOHARRAO MENJOGE
MENJOGE
Date: 2022.07.25
15:11:40 +0530
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 25.07.2022.
: 25.07.2022.
: 25.07.2022.
( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
B.A.978/2022
..6..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
25.07.2022.
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
25.07.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
25.07.2022.
order uploaded on
25.07.2022.