Cri. Bail Appln. No.634 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
1
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK,
AT – NASHIK.
(Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh)
Criminal Bail Application No.634 of 2022
CIR NO. MHNS010024172022
Santosh Balkrishna Babhulkar
Age : 42 years, Occu.: Business
R/o : Flat No.2, Dharmbhakti
Complex, Shravan Sector,
New Nashik­422008.

… Applicant.

V/S
State of Maharashtra
Through – P.I. Ambad
Police Station (C.R. No.I­85/2022)
… Respondent/State.

Appearance :
Ld. Advocate Shri. Atul Sanap for Applicant/Accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondent/State.
Ld. Advocate Shri. Rayate for the Complainant/Intervener.
Shri.Shrikant Nimbalkar, P.I. (I.O.), present.
ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(Delivered on 09th June, 2022)
1.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of pre­arrest bail in C.R. No.I­85/2022 registered
with the respondent/ Ambad Police Station for an offence punishable under
420, 463, 465, 471, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.634 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
2
2.

Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that on a direction of the learned
J.M.F.C. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. an FIR came to be registered.
Applicant and the complainant were known to each other and therefore they
started a company and opened an account with the bank. It was decided that
the applicant will look after the business of the company at Nashik and the
complainant will look after the business of the company at Navi Mumbai.
Some dispute arose between applicant and the complainant. Complainant
learnt that a resolution was submitted to the bank and in that resolution the
accounts will be operated henceforth by the applicant alone, was mentioned.
The case of the complainant is that no such resolution was passed, as the
applicant and the complainant are the two directors of the company with 50%
share each in the company. The signature of the complainant was forged by
the applicant. The applicant has misappropriated an amount of more than
Rs.21,00,000/­.
3.

It is the case of the applicant that, he is falsely implicated in this
case. Investigation is practically over. Nothing is to be recovered or
discovered at the instance of the applicant. Applicant is ready to co­operate the
I.O. in the investigation. Custodial interrogation is not necessary. Therefore,
prayed to allow the application on any terms.
4.

Respondent filed their say vide Exh.6 and strongly objected on
the grounds that, they wish to interrogate the applicant on the point of
misappropriation of the amount. The investigation is in progress. Therefore,
prayed to reject the application.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.634 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
3
5.

In this matter, the complainant appeared as an intervener. His
intervention was allowed. He filed written submission vide Exh.9 and
documents vide list Exh.11.
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant, Ld. A.P.P. for State, I.O. in
person and learned advocate of intervenor/complainant. Gone through the
documents placed on record by both the parties.

7.

Upon hearing and going through the material placed on record,
what can be gathered is that the complainant and the applicant were friends
and used to work together. They both decided to float a company and
accordingly a company was formed, wherein applicant and the complainant
were directors with 50% share each in the company. The bank accounts came
to be opened in the name of company and both were the signatories for
withdrawal of the amounts. Everything was going in a right direction and
thereafter certain dispute arose in between the applicant and the complainant
and therefore the applicant filed a complaint application to the P.I. of
respondent Police Station and so also to the superior police officers and
thereafter approached to the learned J.M.F.C. with a private complaint.
8.

In the above backdrop, let us consider whether custodial
interrogation of the applicant with the police is necessary. The allegations are
that after the dispute arose between the parties, the applicant prepared a
resolution and forged the signature of the complainant and submitted it to the
bank manager, where the accounts of the company is. The police have
obtained the handwriting samples of the applicant as well as the complainant.
They have also seized the computer on which the resolution was typed. But
the police requires the custody of applicant to know as to the accounts of the
Cri. Bail Appln. No.634 of 2022 (Or. Exh.1)
4
company and thereafter to come to the conclusion as to the amount which is
misappropriated. Learned advocate for the applicant argued that they have also
filed an FIR with the respondent police station against the complainant, his
wife and another, wherein, they got anticipatory bail and this FIR is filed just
to give counter blast to the FIR filed by the applicant. This court finds that this
is a dispute between two directors of a company about the ownership.
However, the allegations about forgery and misappropriation are required to
be investigated thoroughly and therefore custody of the applicant with the
police is of utmost necessary as the I.O. will have to confront the documents
seized by him and interrogate the applicant in that line. In the result, the
application fails. Hence, the order.
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.634/2022
is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Place : Nashik
Date : 09/06/2022
Digitally signed by
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN SHAIKH
Date: 2022.06.09
17:31:53 +0530
(M. H. Shaikh)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.