1
MHNS010042082022
Order below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail
Application No. 971/2022.
1]
This is an application preferred by accused Santosh
Chandrbhan Mule for bail under section 439 of Cr. P. C. in C.R. No. I
244/2008 registered in Panchvati Police Station, Nashik for the offence
punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
2]
In short, it is contended by the accused that he has been
falsely implicated. On perusal of FIR it can be observed that accused is
victim as the circumstances and has no role to play. Bail application of the
accused is rejected by contending that there are chances of absconding.
He has never fled nor absconded. On the contrary necessary steps was not
taken by the Ld. Trial Court before issuing proclamation. There was no
iota of evidence against accused. Nothing has been brought on record to
link the present accused to the offence.
Chargesheet was filed on
20.05.2009. Ample time has lapsed since then. Investigation is practically
completed. No purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind
bar. There are no criminal antecedents towards his discredit. He is ready
to abide by the terms and conditions. Hence, prayed that application is
allowed.
3]
Say was called of Investigating Officer. He has objected the
application on the count that accused was absconding since 2008 for 14
years. If accused is released on bail there is every possibility that he will
abscond again. There is all possibility that accused will run and abscond
2
to other state.
Accused will threaten and tamper the prosecution
witnesses. If accused is released on bail he is likely to commit similar type
of offence. Accused has purchased property at certain places even sell the
same and abscond.
Statement of witnesses are yet to be recorded.
Hence, prayed that application be rejected.
4]
Heard arguments of both the parties. Learned advocate for
the accused has relied upon Amit Raikar Vs. State of Goa & Anr., reported
in 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 268. Perused the citation. Hon’ble Court has noted
that being accused/applicant would jump on bail is a ground taken in
almost all the bail applications to object grant of bail. There is no past
experience for saying so. Trial will take time. However, the facts of the
above case will not be applicable as accused has absconded for many years
even though he is resident of Nashik. He was apprehended at Kinwat,
Dist. Nanded. Hence, the facts differ.
5]
Considering the FIR it is seen that accused has given
inducement to provide job at Municipal Corporation, Zillha Parishad on
the post of Talathi and took cash amount from them by giving them forged
form without giving them job he ran away. The total cheating is to the
tune of Rs.51,25,000/.
6]
On perusing the case papers it is seen that FIR has been
registered on 28.05.2008. It is also seen that 49 people were cheated on
the count of providing job by taking a sum of Rs.51,25,000/ by the
accused. Present accused was not found due to which chargesheet was
filed under section 299 of Cr.P.C. Proclamation was issued against the
accused as well as witness was examined. In such circumstances it cannot
be said that proper procedure was not adopted by the court. I.O. has
submitted that accused was apprehended from Kinwat Dist. Nanded after
3
long period of 14 years which reflects his conduct that he was absconding
and avoiding the proceedings. It has also come on record that accused has
purchased certain property and there is possibility he will sale the same
and flee away. Looking to the conduct of the accused it is clear that he
wants to avoid proceedings by cheating to the tune of Rs.51,25,000/.
Releasing the accused in those circumstances will not be proper as trial
has to be conclude. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
Nashik.
Date : 24/08/2022.
Sd/xxx
(V.S.MalkalpatteReddy)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.