MHNS010049722022 Order below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1155/2022.

1.This is an application preferred by applicant Ajinkya Rajendra Sope for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No. I­ 184/2022 registered in Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.It is submitted by the accused that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the crime. He has no concern with the crime. There is delay in filing the FIR. There is exaggeration of incident. Police custody was granted. He is working in Samta Nagari Patsanstha and earning his source of income. Investigation is completed. There is no direct evidence or eye witness against the applicant. His name is not reflected in FIR and amount of Rs.48,000/­ has been shown received by the applicant, however, it cannot be termed as amount from the proceeds of the crimes.

He is an agent and helps customers to open account. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions. Hence, prayed that application is granted.

3.Say was called of the investigating officer. He has objected this application on the count that, present accused has signed as witness to the forged document. He has open the bank account of the impersonated person Suresh Kale. Accused has also received Rs.86,000/­ from coaccused Radhika Patil and her relatives. Investigation with respect to said aspect is yet pending. They have to inquire about the bank document obtained in the name of impersonated person. Wanted accused Nilesh Murtdak is yet to be arrested and inquired. Hence, prayed that application
be rejected.

4.Heard Ld. APP and Ld. Advocate for accused. It is submitted by the Advocate for the accused that merely because accused has open the bank account for the impersonated person cannot lead to an inference that accused has assisted him. He is working in bank and has assisted in opening the account. Nothing has to be recovered from the present accused. Trial will take time. Hence, prayed that bail be granted.

5.At the outset it is seen that present applicant has signed as witness to the sale deed not in his name but as Ajay Kaskar. Furthermore, a sum of Rs.86,000/­ has been received by the present accused from main accused Radhika Patil and her relatives. Accused has opened bank account for the impersonated person. All these factors clearly contribute the role attributed by the present accused in commission of the offence.

Investigation is in progress. Co­accused are yet to be arrested. Prima facie involvement of the accused is reflected. Hence, I am not inclined to released the accused at this stage and proceed to pass following order :­

ORDER

Application is hereby rejected.

Nashik. (V.S.Malkalpatte­Reddy) Date : 03/10/2022.Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.