Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
1
IN THE OURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK,
AT – NASHIK.
(Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh)
Criminal Bail Application No.622 of 2022
CNR No.MHNS010024012022
1.

Bhagwan Lekharaj Premchandani
Age : 73 years, Occu. : Business
2.

Nitesh Bhagwan Premchandani
Age : 42 years, Occu. : Business
Both R/o : Y­501/502, Golden Rays,
Shastri Nagar, Andheri (West),
Mumbai­53.

… Applicants/Accused.

VERSUS
State of Maharashtra
Through – P.I. Nashik­Road Police
Station (CR No.I­0138/2022)
… Respondent/State.

Appearance :
Ld. Advocate Shri. Mandar D. Bhanose for Applicants/Accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondent/State.
Ld. Advocate Shri. Amol Shinde alongwith Shri. Tanaji Waje
for the Intervenor/Complainant.
Shri. Yogesh Patil, API (I.O.) present.
ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(Delivered on 15th June, 2022)
1.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of pre­arrest bail in CR No.I­0138/2022
registered with the respondent/Nashik­Road Police Station for an
offence punishable under Sections 385, 386, 341, 323, 406, 420, 427
and 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”).

Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
2
2.

Perusal of F.I.R. reflects that, the F.I.R. was lodged on
10.05.2022 at respondent/police station against the applicants and
other four unknown persons by Marshal Richard D’souza. It is alleged
that, the applicant No.1 was appointed as a financial adviser by M/s
C & M Farming Limited (for short, “Company”) for the period 2006 to
2016. It is alleged that, during the said period, the applicants had
misappropriated the property and had stolen some important
documents of the Company and cheated the Company.
3.

It is further alleged that, on 07.03.2022, the applicants
called the Directors of the Company for a meeting and they
pressurized the Directors of the Company to sign the document,
wherein it is mentioned that the applicants had made various
irregularities in the Company and the Directors of the Company will
not take any action against the applicants. The Directors of the
Company refused to sign the said document. The applicants
threatened the Directors of the Company that they should transfer
the properties at Sinnar in their names, otherwise they will kill the
Directors of the Company.
4.

It is further alleged that, on 10.05.2022, when the
complainant was on the way to Nashik from Sinnar at about 03.00
p.m. on Nashik­Pune Highway, near Ambika Textile, two unidentified
persons came on a motorcycle and obstructed the Car of the
complainant and compelled the complainant to get down of the Car.
One person out of them, had broken the glass of the Car and started
abusing the complainant. At that time, one four wheeler came on the
spot and two persons came out of the Car and one person out of
them, asked the complainant that applicants had sent them, so as to
take the signature of Terry D’souza on the document and demanded
Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
3
the original papers of properties situated at Sinnar, Dist. Nashik. The
complainant refused to give the paper and at that time, one out of
the two persons tried to assault by rod to the complainant, but in the
meanwhile, public gathered on the spot and therefore all of them left
the spot of incident. The matter came to be reported to the Police.
5.

It is the case of the applicants that they are falsely
implicated in this case. The Company had appointed M/s Supreme­
Cap Infra Pvt. Ltd., as a consultant, as the company was suffering
from huge losses and also was declared as a sick Company by B.I.F.R.
vide which order dated 17.04.2007. The Company failed to repay the
loans, which they had obtained from various Banks and all the loans
were classified as Non­Performing Assets (for short, “NPA”). The
Directors of the Company requested the applicant to give consultancy
and services in the matters of pending cases before the B.I.F.R. The
applicants had rendered its services and settled various loans under
the one time settlement scheme (for short, “OTS”). It was agreed that,
as per the work, the fees will be charged. But the Company did not
pay the amount instead it was decided that, the Company will give
the lands belonging to them as the fees. Accordingly, the agreement
to sale came to be executed as regards the properties at Village­Joran
and Vani (Khurdh) towards the consideration of consultancy services
rendered to the Company by the Company of the applicants. The
Company failed to full their contractual obligation as per the
agreement to sale. Therefore, a special Civil Suit bearing No.497 of
2016 came to be filed against the Company, wherein the Company
appeared and the matter came to be settled. Accordingly, the
memorandum of understanding (for short, “MOU”) was executed and
consent terms were filed in consonance with the MOU before the Ld.
Civil Judge, Sr. Division and the compromise decree was passed. By
Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
4
way of MOU, two mediators came to be appointed to see that, the
obligations are complied by both the parties. The Senior Intelligence
Officer, DGGI, Zonal Unit, Mumbai had called Terry D’souza and she
had given her statement wherein she accepted that, the applicant’s
Company was not paid any fees and they had opted for services of
them. The Directors of the Company had also filed the complaint
application at Bhadrakali Police Station in the Year­2017, which upon
inquiry came to be closed. The Tahsildar, Sinnar had attached the
properties belonging to the Company, as the Company did not pay
the taxes. The allegations in the F.I.R. are false and the story about
10.05.2022 is also false. The F.I.R. is lodged, just to avoid the
payment to the applicants. Applicant No.1 is a senior citizen with
various ailments and undergoing treatment. Applicant No.2 is the son
of applicant No.1. The case revolves around the documentary
evidence. No custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, prayed
to allow the application.
6.

Respondent filed their say vide Exh.7 and objected to
grant pre­arrest bail. It is their case that, the offences alleged are
serious in nature. The motorcycle and the Car are to be seized. The
iron­rod is also required to be seized. The documents are required to
be collected. Investigation is in progress. The applicants may threaten
and pressurize the complainant and the witnesses. Therefore, prayed
to reject the application.
7.

In this matter, complainant appeared as an intervenor.

His intervention was allowed. He filed his written submissions vide
Exh.10 and also placed the documents on record. The grounds
mentioned in the written submissions are that, the applicants had
cheated the Company and grabbed the immovable properties of the
Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
5
Company as well as the documents. Those documents are required to
be seized from the possession of the applicants. Therefore, the
custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, prayed to reject the
application.
8.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicants, Ld. A.P.P. for
State, Ld. Advocate for the intervenor/complainant and the I.O. in
person. Gone through the documents placed on record by the parties.
So also gone through the police­papers produced for inspection by
the I.O.
9.

In this matter, on the very first day of hearing ad­interim
order was passed below Exh.4 on 18.05.2022 and directed the
applicants to remain present before the I.O. at the respondent/police
station on 24.05.2022 between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and to co­
operate the I.O. in the investigation and the show­cause notice was
issued to the respondent and the matter was listed on 25.05.2022.
10.

On 25.05.2022 record reflects that, the intervenor
appeared and filed his written submission and the Ld. A.P.P. also
filed the say. However, the in­charge Court while extending ad­
interim order directed the applicants to appear on alternate dates till
the disposal of the main application.
11.

Upon hearing and going through the material placed on
record, what can be gathered is that, the F.I.R. is in three parts. The
first part deals with the misappropriation and cheating on the part of
the applicants of the properties of the Company. In this regard, the
F.I.R. says that, the Civil matters are pending before the Civil Court
between the parties. In this regards, a complaint application was filed
Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
6
with the Bhadrakali Police Station and upon inquiry and upon the
opinion of the Government Pleader, the complaint application was
closed with a remark that, no offence is disclosed and the matter is of
Civil nature.
12.

The same allegations are again leveled in the F.I.R. The
Civil disputes are still pending between the parties as regards the
immovable properties and other disputes. Moreover, it is submitted
across the bar that, the applicants have submitted all the documents
called for by the I.O. This Court is afraid as to whether once the
matter is closed by the Police of one Police Station, whether again on
the same facts, Police of another Police Station can investigate in that
regard. Be as it is, the fact is that, the documents are submitted by
the applicants to the I.O. and there is no dispute in this regard made
by the I.O.
13.

The second part of the F.I.R. deals with the incident of
07.03.2022. It says that, the applicant No.1 had called Terry D’souza
to one Hotel at Patherdi Phata, where all the Directors of the
Company went over there. The applicant No.1 threaten the Directors
of the Company to give the lands belonging to the Company, which is
situated at Sinnar, Dist. Nashik. Further, the applicant No.1 had
brought
a document,
wherein it
was mentioned
that,
the
irregularities which the applicants had committed as regards the
properties of the Company, for that the Directors of the Company will
not take any action. The Directors of the Company refused to sign the
said document and also refused to give the properties of Sinnar. The
Directors of the Company had filed a complaint application about
the said incident with the Police Station. Therefore, as far as the
incident of 07.03.2022 is concerned, the Police is inquiring the said
Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
7
matter, then again the question crops up as to whether for one
incident two Police Stations can initiate action. Be as it is, the fact is
that, the properties situated at Sinnar of the Company are already
attached by the Tahsildar of Sinnar as the Company did not pay the
taxes. Therefore, the question crops up as to whether the applicants
can demand the properties of the Company, which is already
attached by the Government. Those documents are with the Directors
of the Company and not the applicants. The I.O. can collect those
documents from the complainant.
14.

The third part of the F.I.R. is of the incident of
10.05.2022. It is alleged that, the complainant alongwith his three
friends were coming to Nashik from Sinnar. After the Toll Naka the
incident occurred. One motorcycle came and obstructed the Car of
the complainant and one of them broke the glass of the Car and
asked the complainant to step out of the Car. In the meanwhile one
car came over there, which was bearing No.MH­01 white color and in
that Car two persons were there. Those two persons came near the
complainant and said that, applicants have sent them to take the
signature of Terry D’souza on the document and also asked for the
documents of properties of Sinnar, which the complainant was
carrying with him as there was dispute about the electricity bills. One
person removed the iron­rod and was going to assault the
complainant at that time, the public gathered over there and
therefore they ran away.
15.

In this regard, if we minutely go through the incident of
10.05.2022, one will find that there were complainant and his three
friends in the Car belonging to the complainant. It is the case that,
one motorcycle and one Car came and they were in all four
Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
8
unidentified persons. But the facts is that, none of them i.e. the
complainant and his three friends noted down the numbers of the
motorcycle and the Car anywhere. It is very strange that, none of
them could note the number any where. Moreover, the I.O. has
recorded the statements of two eye witnesses. They also did not
mention the registration numbers of the motorcycle and the Car. The
I.O. did not take pain to go to the Toll Naka and collect the CCTV
footage of the Car.
16.

Be as it is, the first part of the F.I.R. deals with the
misappropriation and cheating and grabbing the properties of the
Company. In that regard, Civil litigations are pending in between the
parties. As far as, the incident of 07.03.2022 is concerned, complaint
application is pending with the Police Station. As far as, the third
incident is concerned, the applicants were not their on the spot of
incident and four unknown persons described by the complainant are
required to be traced. The applicants have followed the due process
of Law. They have filed a suit and obtained a compromise decree. As
far as, the properties at Sinnar is concerned, i.e. they are already
attached by the Government. The I.O. can very well take the CCTV
footage from the Toll Naka and go on with the investigation. It is a
fact that the Company had taken the services of the applicants as a
consultant and had to pay their fees. Grievance is that, their fees to
be high, but the fact is that, it was decided between the Directors and
the applicant that instead of fees in money, they will given their lands
to them. This Court finds that, this is a Civil nature dispute.
Moreover, the Directors of the Company did not challenge the MOU
and the compromise decree. They have filed a Civil Suit, but that Suit
is not as regards to the properties at Village­Joran and Vani
(Khurdh). The Directors of the Company did not fulfill their
Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
9
contractual obligations. The contention that the accused No.1 is
absconding from a case at Delhi Court. Ld. Advocate for applicants
have placed on record the Judgment of Delhi Court, wherein
applicant No.1 came to be acquitted. Applicant No.1 is an old person
and taking treatment. Moreover, the applicants have attended the
Police Station before the I.O. for more than ten days and had also
given the documents asked by the I.O. The case revolves around the
documents. Therefore, this Court finds that, custodial interrogation of
the applicants is not necessary because they were before the I.O. for
more than ten days for more than two hours for each day. The
investigation can proceed further because police­papers show that the
I.O. has written letters to all the Banks from where the loans were
obtained by the Company and also to the Sub­Registrar Offices,
where the documents were registered. Therefore, custody of
applicants is not necessary with the Police. Therefore, this Court finds
that, the discretion of pre­arrest bail can be granted in favour of the
applicants by imposing certain conditions. In the result, the following
order.
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.622 of 2022 is allowed.

2.

Interim order passed by this Court on Exh.4 as regards bail is
made absolute.

3.

Applicants to present themselves before the the I.O. at the
Respondent/ Nashik­Road Police Station on 20 th, 22nd and 24th
June, 2022 between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and co­operate
the I.O. in the investigation and thereafter as and when I.O.
calls them under prior written intimation.

4.

Applicants not to threaten the complainant and the witnesses.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.622 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
10
5.

Applicants not to leave the Country without prior permission
of this Court.

6.

Inform this order to the I.O.

7.

In the above terms, the Criminal Bail Application No.622 of
2022 stands disposed off accordingly
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Place : Nashik.
Date : 15/06/2022
Digitally signed by
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN SHAIKH
Date: 2022.06.15
18:13:09 +0530
(M. H. Shaikh)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.