CNR MHNS010012952022 No.
Order below Exh. 1 in, Cri. Bail Application No. 385/2022
( Prakash Bapurao Patil applicant/accused 1 Vs. State )
This is an application,for prearrest bail u/s. 438 of the Cr.P.C. in C.R. No.27 of 2022 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Nashik u/ss. 420, 406, 468,471 of The Indian Penal Code(IPC).
2.The learned counsel Mr.A.J.Bhide for the applicant submits that, in the year 2018 some villagers approached him and told him that,Dayanand Upase, Shubham and Sandeep Upase are ready to help them for their appointment in Railway Department.
The villagers also told him that, Dayanand Upase had contact at Calcutta and as per say of Dayanand, if they deposit Rs. 6,50,000/with the persons from Calcutta, then they would receive appointment letters. The applicant has no contact in Railway Department and was not knowing Upase family and the person from Calcutta. The applicant came to know that Vaibhav Shivaji Wadkar lodged FIR against Upase family and complainant Vaibhav mentioned the name of applicant in the FIR contending that, as per advise of the applicant complainant went to Calcutta and paid the amount.
3. Mr. Bhide further submits that,when the informant approached him for the same, he advised to do needful before paying amount and to take precaution. From the perusal of FIR, no direct role is assigned to the present applicant. It is the other accused persons who according to the prosecution assured the informant and his relatives to provide a job in Railway and obtained money on that pretext in the name of present applicant who never met with informant or his relatives or made any conversation or assurance with them. The applicant is innocent person and aged 63 years. He retired from S.T. Department and hails from highly reputed family. He has been falsely implicated.
Applicant is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court.
4. Learned A.P.P. Mr. R.M. Baghdane, by filing pursis (Exh.7) adopted say filed by I.O (Exh.6.) and strongly objected this application. I.O. is present alongwith case dairy. Original informant appeared vide Exh.8 in the court and also objected this application by filing say Exh.10.
5. Perused record. It is the case of prosecution as per FIR that, accused person Dayanand, Shubham and Sandip Upase in collusion with applicant approached informant and his friend Rahul Bhimrao Balure and on the pretext of giving job in Railway department, they received Rs.13,00,000/ from the informant and witness Rahul Bhimrao Balure. Dayanand Upase in collusion with Shubham and Sandip Upase assured that, applicant would take guarantee for the job and money. Upon their request to have personal meeting with the applicant, they avoided on one pretext or another. Neither they provided any job as per promise nor they returned amount despite their repeated request.
6. According to I.O. thorough investigation is required in respect of the person who is named Niranjan, as his whereabouts are not known and inter State investigation is to be carried out. He has served notice u/s. 41(A)(1) of the Cr.P.C. upon the applicant.
This application is strongly objected by learned A.P.P. on the grounds that, investigation is incomplete, racket at inter State level is to be busted, investigation is to be carried out with bank and in respect of communication on phone by informant and witnesses, applicant may tamper or hamper prosecution witnesses and evidence, involvement of other accused is to be traced and thereafter be arrested. Perusal of police papers, reveals that, witness has stated the direct involvement of the applicant in the crime. Needless to mention that, FIR is not encyclopedia. There is every likelihood that he may abscond and may not be available for investigation which is incomplete,inter State investigation is to be carry out in a case where unemployed persons are duped on the pretext of providing Government job. Offences are serious in nature. For the purpose of investigation, on above grounds custodial interrogation is necessary. Above grounds shown in the application is not just and satisfactory. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant.
Consequently, this application is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
This application stands rejected.
( S. T. Tripathi ) Date: 29.03.2022. Additional Sessions Judge 7, Nashik.