1 Cri. Bail Appln. No.1826/2020
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(COURT NO.6) NASHIK
Criminal Misc. Appln. No.1826 of 2020.

CNR MHNS010053302020
Ganesh Jayram Jagtap,
Age : 40 years, Occ­Business
R/o. Wadala Road, Pathardi,
Nashik.

… Applicant/accused
V/s.

State of Maharashtra
Through P.I. Indiranagar Police
Station (Cr. No.95/2020)
… Respondent
ORDER BELOW EXH.NO.1.

1.

The applicants/accused have filed this application for grant of bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.95 of 2020 of Indiranagar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 420, 120­B, 467, 468, 471 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The facts in brief of the case are as under: A report was lodged at police station Indiranagar, Nashik on 06/03/2020 by the original complainant Jagannath Khanderao Jadhav that the accused no.1 had told him in May­2019 that he was going to construct a big hospital, Girls hostel, school and temple and much amount would be required for such purpose and for the same he would sale the gold which he possessed, but prior to it he had to perform the ‘Yagya’ and for such purpose Rs. Two crores are required and this amount is not with him and hence he required Rs. Two crores.

For such reason, he demanded the amount and assured payment in one month. Accordingly, the original complainant has paid Rs. 52,00,000/­
2 Cri. Bail Appln. No.1826/2020
to the accused and that amount was to be returned in four months.

However, that amount is not repaid. The accused no. 2 had assured to repay the amount if the accused no.1 did not repay it and he had shown a false FD receipt of Rs. Five Crores but did not return the amount and cheated him. On such report, the offence came to be registered. The accused is arrested. He seeks release on bail on the ground that he is falsely implicated in this case. The agreement to sale in respect of the property owned by the accused is done with the original complainant on 23/06/2020. Though Rs. 52,00,000/­ are stated to be recovered, but the agreement to sale in respect of property worth more than Rs. 1
Crore is got executed by the original complainant. The investigation in this matter is mostly over. In the other offence the accused has been granted bail. No purpose would be served by detaining the accused in judicial custody. He is not likely to abscond and he is ready to abide by all terms and conditions.

3.

The respondent/State has opposed this application on the ground that the recovery of the amount of is to be achieved, where the misappropriated amount is kept is to be investigated. Other offences are also registered against the accused and the investigation in that respect is going on. The coins having the name of Reserve Bank of India are to be sent to RBI for verification. The information sought from the Banks is yet to be received. The accused has destroyed the other fixed deposit receipts. The offence is serious. If the application is allowed, the applicant might tamper with the witnesses and he might abscond and hence the present application is sought to be rejected.

4.

Heard argument advanced by Ld. Adv. Mr. Kasliwal for the applicant and Ld. APP Mr. Gorwadkar for the respondent. Ld. Adv. Mr.

Kasliwal has argued that the custodial interrogation of the applicantaccused is not required. The accused has subsequently entered with the
3 Cri. Bail Appln. No.1826/2020
agreement to sale the house property owned by him to the original complainant and the amount which he was liable to pay is shown as adjusted towards the payment of the amount due. The said property is given on leave and license basis to the accused’s wife by the original complainant on 23/06/2020 i.e. the same day of executing the agreement to sale. In respect of the other offences, the parties have entered into a compromise and the money is paid to him. The applicant has also paid Rs.5,00,000/­ by D.D. to the original complainant. The recovery of the other amount which has been utilized by the accused cannot be achieved by keeping him in judicial custody. In the changed scenario, there is no likelihood of the accused’s absconding or tampering with the investigation and hence he be released on bail.

5.

Ld. APP Mr. Gorwadkar has argued that the entire amount is yet to be recovered. The intention of the applicant/accused had been not to pay. The conduct and modus operandi of the applicant is required to be considered as he has made payment only after the offence has got registered and considering all these aspects, if he is released on bail, there is possibility of his tampering with the witnesses or absconding and hence the present application be rejected.

6.

On consideration of rival submissions, it is observed that the anticipatory bail application of the accused was rejected as the investigation was in the preliminary stages, his custodial interrogation was found necessary. Now he has been arrested and he has also undergone police custody and now he is in judicial custody for quite some time. The offence is registered on 06/03/2020 and then substantial time has lapsed and prima facie major part of the investigation is seen to have been done. With regard to the allegations of cheating made by the original complainant, it is seen that he has entered into an agreement to sale with regard to the house property of
4 Cri. Bail Appln. No.1826/2020
the accused and the amount regarding which he had complained of having duped, is shown adjusted towards payment in that agreement to sale. These are subsequent developments after registration of the offence. The same premises are given by the original complainant to the accused no.1 on leave and license basis subsequent to the registration of the offence.

7.

Ld. Adv. Mr. Kasliwal has stated that the recovery of the alleged amount of the original complainant is seen to have been achieved in view of this agreement to sale. He stated that the accused has to make more payments but if he is kept in judicial custody then that payment would not be possible.

8.

Here it is observed that the major part of the investigation is over. The apprehension expressed by the respondent that there is possibility of the accused’s tampering with the investigation or the witnesses is not having any base. At this prima facie stage, the conduct of the applicant/accused subsequent to the registration of the offence has also to be considered, in the factual scenario of the matter. In view of the documents placed on record, I observe that no purpose would be served by detaining the applicant in judicial custody considering the nature of offence when bail is the rule and jail is the exception. By imposing stringent conditions so that the applicant does not abscond or tamper with the witnesses, he can be released on bail. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER
1.

The application is allowed.

2.

Applicant/accused Ganesh Jayram Jagtap be released on bail on executing PB & SB of Rs.50,000/­ along with one or
5 Cri. Bail Appln. No.1826/2020
two local sureties of like amount in Crime No.95 of 2020 of Indiranagar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 420, 120­B, 467, 468, 471 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code subject to following conditionsi.

He shall not abscond or tamper with the witnesses.

ii.

The applicant / accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday in between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. until further order and cooperate in investigation.

iii.

He shall furnish his correct address proof along with the address proof of his two near relatives for his release on bail.

iv.

He shall not leave local limits of the Nashik District without permission of the Court.

v.

In the event of breach of any of the conditions, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled.

Sd/­
Date:­ 04/01/2021
(M.S. Bodhankar)
Nashik.

Additional Sessions Judge,
(Court No.6) Nashik.