CNR
MHNS010040102020
Order below Exh.1
in Cri. Bail Application No.1411/2020.
{ Rahul Badrinath Chavan Vs. State }
This is an application under section 439 of the Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of bail pending trial.
2.

Brief facts giving rise to this application can be narrated as
follows.
The applicant came to be arrested on 02.10.2020 in Crime
No.239/2020 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 409 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code along with sections 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik
on the accusation that from June 2020 to September 2020, the
applicant­accused and co­accused lured the informant to deposit
amount Rs.21,000/­ in order to secure loan from K.K. Planets
Technologist Private Limited and Kuber Shakti Multi Purpose India
Nidhi Limited, Nashik and accordingly he had paid Rs.21,000/­.

In
spite of payment, the accused or the company failed to provide him
loan and thereby cheated him and other depositors.
3.

The applicant contends that he has not committed the
offences as alleged by the prosecution. There is nothing on record to
show his involvement in the commission of the offence.

He was
employee in the company. He is behind bar from the date of his arrest.
Investigation is almost completed.

His further detention is not
necessary for the progress of investigation. He is having permanent
place of abode and roots in the society. Therefore, question of his
fleeing from justice does not arise. He is ready to furnish the surety to
..2..

the satisfaction of this Court and also ready to abide by the conditions,
if any, imposed by this Court. On these lines, he has prayed for bail
pending trial.
4.

The respondent State opposed the bail petition by filing say
and inter­alia denied all the adverse allegations made by the applicant
and re­iterated the prosecution case.

It is contended that there is
prima­facie sufficient material on record to show the involvement of the
applicant in the commission of offence.

It is contended that the
applicant had accepted the amount from the informant and 38
depositors worth Rs.6,79,870/­. Even after the payment, the applicant
and others failed to provide loan to them. The investigation is still in
progress. Scope of the investigation is wide. If the applicant is released
on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Even he may
not turn to face the trial. It is contended that the offence is economic
one, and therefore, it will not be just and proper to release the
applicant­accused on bail.

On these lines, the respondent­State has
prayed for rejection of the application.
5.

Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant, the learned APP Mr. Gaikwad and Investigation Officer. I
have also gone through the investigation papers made available by
Investigating Officer. There is prima­facie sufficient material on record
to show the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the
offence. The offence is economic one. However, the learned advocate
for the applicant made a statement at bar that applicant is ready to
deposit an amount as per directions of the Court.

It is further
contended that when the applicant is ready to deposit amount, in
question, no useful purpose will suffice by refusing to release him on
bail. Material investigation is already completed. Now, nothing is to be
recovered or seized from the applicant­accused. As per say filed by
Cri. Bail Application No.1411/2020.
..3..

Investigating Officer, the applicant­accused and co­accused have
accepted total deposits of Rs.6,79,870/­. In all there are four accused
including the applicant involved in this offence. The bail application
filed by co­accused Santosh Suresh Kharat is decided and one co­
accused Shirish Kharat is also arrested. Considering the fact that the
applicant is ready to deposit the amount, no useful purpose will suffice
by refusing the applicant on bail though the offence is economic one.
Having considered the nature of the offence, severity of the
punishment, present applicant­accused can be directed to deposit 25%
of total fraud/deposit amount which is of Rs.6,79,870/­ with the
Investigation Officer. The applicant is ready to furnish the surety to the
satisfaction of this court and also ready to abide by the conditions
imposed if any, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out the
case for grant of bail. With this, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1
Application is hereby allowed.

2
Applicant/accused Rahul Badrinath Chavan be enlarged on
bail, in Crime No.239/2020 registered with Sarkarwada Police
Station, Nashik, District Nashik, on furnishing personal bond of
Rs.30,000/­ with one or two sureties in like amount subject to
condition that he shall deposit 25% amount of total
fraud/deposits {Rs.6,79,870/­} with the Investigation Officer
who shall seized it under seizure panchanama as a muddemal
property and forward the same to the Special Judge along with
the charge­sheet as a muddemal.

3
He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as dissuade them for disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.

4
He shall not commit similar or any other offence and misuse
..4..

the liberty granted by this court.
5
He shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday
in between 10 a.m. to 01 p.m. till filing of the charge­sheet and
co­operate in further investigation.

6
He shall furnish his address proof, identification proof and
mobile number, if any, and shall not change his residential
address without informing Investigating Officer.
Seema
Chandrakant
Jadhav
st
31 October, 2020.

Digitally signed by Seema
Chandrakant Jadhav
Date: 2020.10.31 13:53:26
+0530
( Smt. S.C. Jadhav )
Additional Sessions Judge­8,
Nashik.