Cri. Bail Appln. No.422 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1) IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK
AT – NASHIK.

Criminal Bail Application. No.422 of 2022
CNR No. MHNS010015142022

1.Rajendra Tulsidas Katore
Age : 54 years, Occu. : Business

2.Anita Rajendra Katore
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Business

Both R/o : Nathprasad Bungalow,
Jagtap Mala, Nashik­Road,
Nashik­ 422101. … Applicants.

V/S

1.State of Maharashtra Through : District Govt. Pleader Nashik

2.Sr. Inspector Police, Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Nashik City.

3.Sr. Inspector Police, Ambad Police Station, Nashik (C.R. No.I­200/2020) … Respondents.

Appearance : Ld. Adv. Shri. Shri. Gorane for Applicants.

Ld. A.P.P. Shri.Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondents.

Shri. Ashok Sharmale, P.I. (I.O.) present.

ORDER BELOW EXH. N0.1
(Delivered on 06 th April, 2022)

1.This is an application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of pre­arrest bail in Crime No.I200/2020 registered with the respondent Ambad Police Station for Cri. Bail Appln. No.422 of 2022 an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant is having a Company adjacent to the Company of the applicants. The complainant and other shareholders are from Rajasthan and therefore they could not properly manage the Company. Therefore, a memorandum of understanding ( for short, “MOU” ) came to be executed between the applicants and the complainant and other two shareholders. It was agreed that the applicants will look after the Company belonging to the complainant and other two shareholders and pay Rs. 3 Crores and also pay annually Rs.2,40,000/­ to the complainant and other two shareholders. In the Year­2018, it revealed to the complainant that the applicants had prepared false documents and submitted the same to the Registrar of Companies ( for short, “ROC” ). In this way, the applicants have cheated and misappropriated the funds of the complainant and the other shareholders of the Company. Therefore, Crime came to be registered at Jodhpur. By the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai, the said Crime came to be transferred to Ambad Police Station, wherein new CR came to be registered and the investigation is carried­out by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Nashik City.

3.It is the case of the applicants that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. The transaction as regards the Company of complainant is completed and the applicants had paid Rs. 3 Crores to the complainant and other shareholders. The complainant and other shareholders had resigned from the Directorship and it was intimated to the ROC. In the meanwhile, in the Year­ 2014, the applicants had taken a loan of Rs. 5 Crores from the complainant and the witnesses. For that, they used to pay the interest. There is a dispute about the interest. False case is filed by the complainant, just to extract the money and pressurize the applicants. The applicants are ready to co­operate the I.O. and therefore prayed to allow the application.

4.Respondent filed their reply vide Exh.10 and opposed the contents of the application. It is their case that, the offences alleged are that of serious in nature. The applicants have cheated the complainant and other shareholders of the Company. The applicants have filed false documents with the ROC. Custodial interrogation of these applicants is necessary. Documents are to be seized from the possession of the applicants. Therefore, prayed to reject the application.

5.Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicants and Ld. A.P.P. for the Respondent/State and I.O. Gone through the entire material placed on record and so also the authorities relied by Ld. Advocate for the applicants.

6.Ld. Advocate for applicants placed reliance upon the following authorities :­ :­

(i) “Ramesh Dahyalal Shah and Others v/s State of Maharashtra & Others in Criminal Application Nos.613, 728 & 866 of 2016 by Hon’ble Bombay High Court 2017 DGLS (Bom.) 1086”.

(ii) “Arnesh Kumar v/s State of Bihar & Another in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 [@ Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.9127 of 2013] by Hon’ble Supreme Court 2014 DGLS (SC) 578”.

(iii) “The Commissioner of Police & Others v/s Devender Anand & Others in Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2017, decided on 08.08.2019 by Hon’ble Supreme Court”.

(iv) “Bharatbhai Jayantilal Patel (deleted) v/s State of Gujarat in R/Criminal Misc. Application Nos.4140 of 2020 by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court”.

7.Upon hearing and going through the material placed on record, what can be gathered is that the the MOU was executed in the Year­2012 between applicants and the complainant and other shareholders, who are family members of the complainant. It seems that the Rs. 3 Crores came to be paid by the applicants to the complainant and others. However, thereafter it is alleged that false documents came to be prepared and the Company belonging to the complainant came to be taken over by the applicants and this is declared by the NCLT, Mumbai as illegal. In The National Company Law Tribunal,Mumbai Bench, Mumbai ( for short, “NCLT” ) had declared complainant and the other shareholders to be 100%
shareholders of the Company i.e. Vivid Solutions Private Ltd. and held that the alleged transferred of shareholding of complainant and others in favour of the applicants to be null and void. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ( for short, “NCLAT” ) directed the parties to maintain status­quo. Therefore, as of now the complainant and the other shareholders are 100% shareholders of their Company. Therefore, this Court is of a considered view that the offence is an economic offence, for which the documents are required to be seized from the possession of the applicants. Moreover, those documents are required to be confronted to these applicants and for that custodial interrogation of these applicants is necessary.

Therefore, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to grant pre­arrest bail.

8.As far as the authorities relied by Ld. Advocate for applicants are concerned, these are the principles and guidelines for grant of bail. However, in our case in hand, custodial interrogation of applicants is needed. Therefore, these authorities are not applicable to our case in hand. In the result, application fails. Hence, the order.

O R D E R

Criminal Bail Application No.422/2022 stands rejected and disposed off accordingly.

MUSHTAQUE Digitally signed by MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN HUSSAIN SHAIKH SHAIKH Date: 2022.04.06
18:23:28 +0530 Place : Nashik. (M. H. Shaikh) Date : 06/04/2022 Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.