..1..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.537/22
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (COURT NO.11)
NASHIK
Criminal Bail Application No.537 of 2022
Nita Ratnakar Mahajan
Age 35 yrs., Occ: Business
R/o. Kshitij Vijay Palace,
Row Bunglow, Swami Samarth
Nagar, Ozar (Mig)
Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik.

…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Dindori Police Station.
(Cr. No.133/2020)
…Opponent
ORDER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION.
1.

The applicant/accused has filed this application for grant of
anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.132 of
2020 of Dindori Police Station for the offence punishable under sections
120­B, 406, 420, 191, 192, 193, 427, 468, 463, 464, 465, 471, 474,
504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.
2.

The facts in brief of the case are as under:
The applicant and other two accused were acquainted with
informant. Lateron, they approached the informant and narrated him
that they are the partners in Nitidnya Steel Metal a Firm which deals in
the business of stone crusher. They misguided informant and Rajendra
Shelke and narrated them that if they invest money in their business
they will make them partners and so they will get yearly profit of Rs.35
..2..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.537/22
to 40 lacs. Thereby they entered into an agreement of partnership with
them on 25/10/2011 and thereafter from time to time they have
obtained Rs.1,17,25,000/­ by cheque and through RTGS as a capital in
the said firm. However, subsequently they neglected to give the
accounts of the said firm to the informant and also the cheques issued
by them in favour of the informant towards profit of the said firm were
dishonoured. Lateron, they prepared forged partnership documents by
not showing informant as a partner of the said firm and opened forged
bank account in ICICIC Bank Dindori. Then from time to time they
have misappropriated and committed fraud of Rs.8,10,00,000/­ by
withdrawing the said amount from the said account. Thereby they
committed criminal conspiracy against informant and others. Hence, the
report.
3.

The applicant by this application has contended that false
allegations are levelled against her by the informant by filing complaint
against them in the court. The crime registered against her is prima
facie not made out. The facts of the case are that the applicant was
running the business of Nitidyna Steel Metal business and in connection
with her business she has met informant. Lateron, informant has
provided some financial assistance in her business, but deed of
partnership was not entered between them and the entire business is
solely owned by her. The informant has prepared some forged
documents and was meddling in her business and was showing himself
as a owner of the same. So the applicant has raised objection and at
that time the informant has threatened her. He has also committed theft
of some documents from her office and she has lodged report against
him in Dindori Police Station. So only to give counter blast to her case
the present complaint is falsely filed against her.

She has not
..3..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.537/22
committed any offence as alleged by the informant. None of the
offences charged against her are made out at this stage. She is not an
habitual offender and her custodial interrogation is not at all necessary.
The crime is falsely registered against her. So she has prayed that she be
released on anticipatory bail and she will co­operate in the investigation
and will abide the conditions of bail if any, imposed on her.
4.

The Ld. APP and I.O. have contested this application by
filing their pursis and say vide Exh. 4 and 5 respectively. They have
contended that since lodging of the FIR, the I.O. has issued notice to the
informant asking her to remain present for investigation. But since then
she is absconding and so the investigation could not be proceeded
further. It is contended that the offence registered is serious in nature
and several documents which are in the custody of applicant are
required to be seized from her. The custodial interrogation of the
applicant is necessary for obtaining the information regarding the firm,
its bank accounts and for obtaining several documents involving in the
offence. So it is prayed that application be rejected.
5.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. B.K. Bhutada for the applicant.

He
argued that no partnership deed was entered in between the informant
and applicant at any point of time. Whereas, due to some business
purpose applicant had came in contact with the informant. However,
informant and others have threatened the applicant, has committed
theft of certain documents. So the applicant has lodged report against
them. So due to the said grudge the informant has falsely implicated
her in this offence. It is further argued that, she has not committed any
offence as alleged by the informant. She is ready to co­operate in the
investigation. So he argued that applicant be released on anticipatory
..4..

Cri. Bail Appln. No.537/22
bail.
6.

Per contra the Ld. APP Smt. Patil argued that, offence
charged against the accused is serious in nature. Since lodging of the
report the applicant is absconding. So due to her absence investigation
could not be proceeded further. She also argued that custodial
interrogation of the applicant is necessary for obtaining information
from her about her bank accounts, the documents involved in the
offence. So it is argued that as the custodial interrogation of the
applicant is essential the application be rejected.
7.

Considering the rival submissions. In view of the
contentions in the present application it can be gathered that, the
present report is lodged on the basis of the order of the court. The FIR is
dated 17/06/2020. It is alleged that the applicant from time to time has
obtained huge amounts from informant and Rajendra Shelke by
inducing them. She has entered into the partnership deed with them.
However, later on, without making them a party she has opened
account of the said firm in the bank and misappropriated and
committed fraud of Rs.8,10,00,000/­ by withdrawing the said amount
from the said account. Thereby she has committed fraud, forgery,
misappropriation and criminal conspiracy against informant and others.
8.

In view of the say of the I.O. as aforestated it has come on
record that he has issued notices to the applicant to remain present
before him for interrogation, but she has not complied the said notice.
So it can be gathered that, since lodging of the report on 17/06/2020
the applicant is absconding. Hence, the apprehension of the prosecution
that if she is released on bail she will abscond is justified.

..5..

9.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.537/22
The offence registered is serious in nature and is involving
voluminous documents. So the custodial interrogation of the applicant
regarding the documents relating to the Nitidnya Stone Metal Firm, its
bank accounts and other documents relating to the said business is
necessary in this crime. It has come on record that, prior to the lodging
of the present report, the applicant has lodged one report against the
present informant and others. However, only because of the same, at
this stage it cannot be said that applicant is falsely implicated in this
crime. Whereas, the report shows direct involvement of the present
applicant in the crime. Applicant being the proprietor of the Nidinya
Stone Metal Firm and as the offence is relating to the fraud, criminal
misappropriation in respect of the said firm, custodial interrogation of
the applicant is necessary for thorough investigation. So considering the
grounds that several documentary evidence relating to the crime is yet
to be seized from the custody of the applicant, her custodial
interrogation is essential. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:­10/06/2022
Nashik.

Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.06.13
17:44:31 +0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
(Court No.11) Nashik.