B.A.1070/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1070 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020060772022 )
Sagar Dilip More
Age: 32 Years, Occ: Service
R/o: Room No.22, Rahul Nagar
Slum Sangh, Behind Mitra Mandal
Building, Tilak Nagar, Chembur (W)
Mumbai 400 071.
…Applicant/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of Tilak Nagar P.Stn.
Vide C.R. No.327/2020)
…Respondents/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Ashokkumbar Dubey Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE, THE ADDL.
JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 08/07/2022.
ORDER
1]
This is an bail application filed by applicant Sagar Dilip More for
grant of bail u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. , in crime no. 327/2020 for the
offence punishable U/s. 420, 468,471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sec. 132(1)E ,F,L (i) (ii) (iA) of GST Act registered at Police Station
Tilaknagar.
2]
The prosecution case in brief is as under ,
That, the complainant Balaji Narhare, Assistant commissioner
State, lodged report that on 6.5.2019 he had visited the M/s. Predict
B.A.1070/2022
..2..
Order
Enterprises (GSTIN 27AJVPM2380F1ZQ) Tilaknagar Mumbai. He found
that such address is fake and no such business is being carried out there.
While obtaining registration Certificate, applicant had submitted forged
and fabricated electric bill. In fact, said bill belongs to Yogesh Dongre of
Gothiwali, Rabale New Bombay. When applicant’s bank account was
traced from PAN card, it is found that he has one account bearing No.
60320798715, with Bank of Maharashtra, Bhavani Shankar Road,
Dadar Bombay. It is further found that he obtained refund of GST
amounting to Rs. 74,76,480/ and withdrawn said amount from his
account by cheques. While opening GST account he had submitted
bogus and forged documents. Based on these allegations, offence came
to be registered against applicant.
3]
Adv. Mr. Ashokkumbar Dubey for the applicant submit applicant
is innocent and has no knowledge of said facts. His documents are
misused by one service provider as applicant was in the need of job. He
had given Adhar card, PAN card etc to him. Investigation is over. His
further detention in jail is not necessary. Applicant relied upon law laid
down in case of Sanjay Chandravs CBI Dt. 23 112011, State of
Kerala vs Raneef
18 (2011)1 SCC 784, Vaman Narain Ghiya vs
State of Raj. 10( 2009) 2 SCC 281 and prayed for his release on bail.
4]
I.O. has filed his say and strongly opposed the application. He
submitted that applicant has cheated the Govt. and misappropriated
huge amount. Therefore, he prayed for rejection of application.
5]
I perused the case diary and heard the counsel for the applicant
and A.P.P. for the State. I have gone through the Law laid down in
B.A.1070/2022
..3..
Order
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,
2]
Moti Ram Vs State of M.P., MANU/SC/0132/1978: (1978) 4
SCC 47;
3]
Babu Singh Vs State of U.P., (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]
VivekKumarVs State of U. P., (2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi,(2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati .Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10] Gurcharan Singh .Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
(1978)1 SCC118.
11] Kalyan Chandra Sarkar .Vs. Rajesh Ranjan
(2004) 7
12]
SCC 528
Ram Govind Upadhyay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh
(2002)3 SCC 598
13]
Puran .Vs. 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
17] Bhadresh .Vs. state of Bihar , (2016)1SCC 152
18] Bharat Choudhary .Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77
19] Munish Bhasin .Vs. State (NCT), (2009)4 SCC 45
B.A.1070/2022
..4..
Order
20] Niranjan Singh .vs. Prabhakar Kharote AIR 1980 SC 785,
21] State of M.P. .Vs. RamKishna Balothia AIR 1995 SC 1198
22]
Pokar Ram .Vs. State of Raj.AIR 1985 SC 969,
23]
Samunder Singh .Vs. State of Raj. AIR 1987 SC 737
24]
Ravindra Saxena .Vs. State of Raj. (2010)1 SCC 684
25]
Pravinbhai Patel .Vs. State of Gujarat (2010)7 SCC 598
26]
27]
Ram Govind Upadhay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598,
State of Mah. .Vs. Anand Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625,
28]
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani .Vs. State of U.P. (2006)9 SCC 425)
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]
From the perusal of the chargesheet, it is revealed that, present
applicant had opened the account in Bank of Maharashtra. Photographs
and other documents were given while opening the account. Anil
Tongare, Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra in his statement
B.A.1070/2022
..5..
Order
stated that account is opened only after verifying name and photograph
of said person. He also stated that rent agreement, PAN card, Adhar
Card, Udyog Adhar Patra are taken along with said form. He further
stated that from the account of Predict Enterprises Rs.74,76,480/ are
withdrawn by various cheques. Said amount was of GST refund.
7)
Smt.
Ujjwal
Gharat,
then
Branch
Manager
of
Bank
of
Maharashtra, in her statement stated that in the year, 2019 Sagar More
had been to said branch to open the account in the name of his
company M/s Predict Enterprises and had signed bank opening form in
her presence. She had verified copies of Adhar Card, PAN card, Bombay
Shop Act Licence etc. from the originals. She had further stated that that
Sagar More had personally came to bank for opening the account. Thus,
defence of applicant that signature on bank account form is not of him
is required to be proved during evidence. Prima facie case of cheating is
made out against him. It is economic offence and huge amount of
Govt.is misappropriated.
8)
Considering all these facts, seriousness and gravity of offence
citations relied by applicant are not helpful to him. Applicant is not
entitled for the bail. Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1070/2022 is hereby rejected and
Digitally signed by
disposed of accordingly.
SHASHANK
SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
MANOHARRAO MENJOGE
MENJOGE
Date: 2022.07.11
16:31:34 +0530
( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 08.07.2022.
: 08.07.2022.
: 08.07.2022.
B.A.1070/2022
..6..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
08.07.2022.
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
08.07.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
08.07.2022.
order uploaded on
08.07.2022.