..1.. Cri. Bail Appln. No.455/2022 IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (COURT NO.11) NASHIK
Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 455 of 2022.

Sachin Rajaram Manglekar

Age 47 yrs., Occ:­ Business
R/o. Rajlaxmi Niwas, Kolage
lane, Near Nandurkhi Canal,
Shirdi Airport road,
Ahmadnagar. … Applicant/accused

V/s.

State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Sinnar Police Station (Cr. No.86/2022) … Respondent

ORDER BELOW ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION.

1.The applicant has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.86 of 2022 of Sinnar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The facts in brief of the case are as under:
The informant Khanderao Deore who is alledgely working as a Security Manager with Mylan Labrotaries Malegaon MIDC, Sinnar Dist Nashik. As per the said report, the said Pharmaceutical company received a letter from RTO dated 07/07/2020. That was a notice regarding income tax for bus bearing No. MH­15­F­9299 which is wrongly mentioned FIR. As per the alleged notice the said bus is owned by the said company which is having capacity of 27 seats and annual tax on the said bus is Rs.1900/­ per seat. It is alleged in the said notice that the tax for the period from 01/08/2014 to 30/04/2019 is not paid and so they were directed to appear before the RTO alongwith vehicle registration certificate, license and E­documents.

3.The informant has further narrated that after receipt of the said notice, the administration department inspected their records and found that the said bus was neither owned by the company nor was purchased by it. After inquiry with RTO they came to know that, the said vehicle is registered in the name of Trambak Kundalik Bawake by application dated 05/09/2014 and another vehicle i.e. Tampo Traveller MH­15­EF­7070 is registered in the name of Sachin Mangalekar by application dated 29/09/2014. It is further alleged that the company does not know these persons who have registered the vehicle in the name of company. They were never employee in their company. Hence, the report is lodged against them.

4.The applicant has stated that he alongwith the other coaccused was informed by the travel agent namely R.Kanan that he would be in a position to get business for him through the Mylan company, if they purchase a small commercial bus. He informed that he has already helped Buthole Travels to obtain a tender from Mylan company. So this made the applicant trust Mr. Kanan and as he was desirous to purchase a vehicle from the dealer i.e. Force Motors Ltd.

bearing no. MH­15­EF­7070. They sought the service of RTO agent Radhakrushna Waghule and purchase the said vehicle by obtaining loan from A.U. Financiers (India) Ltd. He is not aware as to how the vehicle is purchased in the name of Mylan company. He has also obtained General insurance from United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

5.The applicant has further stated that after purchase of the said vehicle Mr. Kanan could not get the contract from Mylan company.

He is using the said vehicle since then. He has entirely repayed the loan amount and the name of finance company also mutated in the RTO records. However, due to the mistake of RTO agent Mr. Waghule the name of owner could not be changed. In the meanwhile due to the pandemic COVID­19 he could not pay the required taxes to the RTO office which resulted into the notice to the Mylan company. He has not intention to cheat the said company nor he has forged any documents to the dealer or to the RTO office. In fact he has raised the loan and purchased the vehicle but due to his inability to take corrective measures at the right time resulted in the vehicle standing in the name of Mylan company. He has faced embarrassment due to the mistake of Mr. Waghule and he is responsible for the said situation, but he has also died.

6.The applicant has further submitted that he has not committed any fraud or forgery. The vehicle is in his custody and is ready to surrender the same for investigation, he has not committed any criminal offence. He has not benefited in any manner on account of the vehicle standing in the name of Mylan company. He is ready to assist the police in investigation and there are no criminal antecedents against him. He will not abscond and he is permanent resident of Ahmadnagar.

His custodial interrogation is not required and so for the aforestated reasons he has prayed that he be released on anticipatory bail.

7.The respondent State has opposed this application by filing pursis vide Exh.7 and say of the investigating officer vide Exh.8. It is contended that the applicant has forged the documents showing that he was relating to the Mylan company and with the help of said documents he has purchased the Tempo Travellar and has registered it in the name of Mylan company. The applicant has forged the said documents and by showing him as director of the said company he has registered the vehicle in RTO office in the name of company. These documents are yet to be recovered from his custody. Also the forged seals and other documents prepared by the applicant are required to be seized. The offence committed is serious in nature and custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential. If the applicant is released on bail he might abscond and commit similar offence again. So on the aforestated grounds it is sought for rejection of the present application.

8.Heard Adv. Mr. S.V. Bhate for the applicant/accused. He argued that the applicant had no intention to cheat the company and he has not committed any fraud or forgery. If ever he had any intention to cheat the company then he could not have obtained loan in his personal capacity to purchase the said vehicle. The vehicle was hypothecated towards the finance company and he has repayed the entire loan. It is not the case of the prosecution that the vehicle was used in any offence nor any wrongful loss is ensued to the RTO or to the company. Prima facie Section 467 is not attracted to this case as he has purchase the vehicle by obtaining loan in his personal capacity. The I.O. has contended that some documents are required to be seized and so personal interrogation of applicant is essential, but the said documents are with the RTO office and dealer of the vehicle. He has not committed any offence. So it is argued that the applicant be released on bail and he is ready to abide the conditions of the same and to cooperate in the investigation.

9.Per contra the Ld. APP Ms. A.R. Patil and I.O. argued that custodial interrogation of applicant/accused is essential in this case. It is argued that the vehicle is purchase in the name of Mylan company and no reasons are brought on record as to why the same is purchase in the name of company. It is not believable to say that applicant had no knowledge about the said fact. Per contra, applicant has purchase the vehicle as showing himself as the director of the company. The documents which are forged by the applicant are to be seized and the seals used for preparation of the said documents are yet to be seized.

Moreover, the other accused involved in this crime are to be traced out.

So for the same custodial interrogation of the accused is essential. So it is argued to reject the application.

10.In view of the submissions of both the parties it has come on record that admittedly the vehicles which are purchased in the name of Mylan company are seized by the I.O. However, the documents which were forged for purchasing the said vehicle in the name of company are admittedly not seized by the I.O. The rubber seals/stamps etc. with the help of which the said forged documents were prepared are also not yet seized by the I.O.

11.The documents filed on record shows that the applicant has obtained loan from the finance company for purchasing the vehicle bearing No.MH­15­EF­7070. Lateron, he has entirely repayed the said loan but only because of the same it cannot be concluded to say at this stage that, he had no intention to cheat the company, when vehicle itself is purchased in the name of company. Also at this stage, there is nothing on record to say that what was the reason for the applicant or as alleged by him to the dealer of the vehicle or R.T.O. Agent to purchase the vehicle in the name of company instead of in the name of applicant himself. This fact requires to be interrogated and for the same custodial interrogation of applicant/accused is essential.

12.The applicant/accused has also contended that after purchasing the vehicle insurance was also obtained for the said vehicle by him. The cover note of the insurance policy shows the name of present applicant as director of the Mylan Laboratories Ltd. According to the applicant the first insurance was obtained by the dealer and lateron he has renewed the same from time to time. Hence, considering his contentions on this point it is difficult to say that he had no knowledge that his name was mentioned as a Director of the said company as cover note of the insurance policy clearly shows the same.

13.The applicant/accused has contended that on the say of one Mr.R. Kanan he has purchase the vehicle to get contract from the Mylan company. According to him, Mr. R. Kanan and the RTO agent Mr. Waghule are responsible for purchasing the vehicle in the name of company. However, only the applicant/accused is in position to explain about the exact role allegedly played by them in this offence. In this application he has given names of these two persons who according to him are the main accused in this offence. So, the applicant/accused can only show their nexus if any in the said offence and can provide their further details. Hence, for the same their custodial interrogation is essential.

14.In view of the above discussion it has come on record that admittedly the vehicle is standing in the name of Mylan company and the name of present applicant/accused is shown as one of the director
of the said company. So prima facie at this stage there is sufficient material to show that the documents were forged to show that the present applicant/accused is one of the director of the company and accordingly was purchased in the name of company. So presence of applicant/accused with I.O. is essential for purpose of making investigation with reference to the documents which were forged and submitted with the RTO office. Hence, considering the nature of the offence and for the aforestated reasons I proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

The application is rejected.

Digitally signed RADHIKA by RADHIKA MADHUKAR MADHUKAR SHINDE SHINDE Date: 2022.04.19
11:21:26 +0530 Date:­18/04/2022 (Smt. R.M. Shinde) Nashik. Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No.11) Nashik.