CNR No MHNS010017492022
Order below Exh. 1 in, Cri. Bail Application No. 468/2022
(Suhas Surendrabhai Macwan applicant/ accused 7 Vs. State )
This is an application,for prearrest bail u/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No.47/2022 registered with Gangapur police station, Nashik u/ss. 420, 406,468, 471,504, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code(for short “IPC”) wherein FIR was registered on the basis of order passed by Ld. J.M.F.C., u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 20.2.2022.
2. Learned counsel Mr.A.N. More for the applicant submits that, he is innocent person and has been falsely implicated. He is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court.
He has got fixed and permanent place of residence and undertakes to cooperate investigation. He has returned entire amount.
3. Learned A.P.P. Mr. R.M. Baghdane, by filing pursis (Exh.9) adopted say filed by I.O (Exh.8) and strongly objected this application. I.O. present present alongwith police case papers.
4. Perused record. It is the case prosecution that, accused persons in collusion and connivance with each other, by giving false promise of giving better returns on investment of money, received
amount of Rs. 6,80,00,000/ from time to time from informant and other business man but failed to return the same and thereby cheated, forged documents and committed breach of trust.
5. According to learned A.P.P. and I.O., Sachin Walera accused 1 by falsely representing that, he is director of Abhik Private Limited Company and rest of the accused including present applicant are its partners and said company had received tender from Rajasthan and Gujrath etc. for advertisement and Green Jim, parted amount from the informant and many other persons.
Accused 1 is not at all its director, though he issued false visiting card. Informant deposited Rs.74,20,239/ in personal account of accused 1 and Rs. 9,00,000/ in Needle Craft society of IDBI Bank of accused 1. Informant further deposited Rs. 3,93,54,778/ though bank account. As per entry No. 5 of
the schedule in FIR amount of Rs. 23,90,000/ was deposited in the company of the present applicant in the name of Champion Choice Food and Supplement and rest of the amount of Rs.1,10,000/ was deposited in his personal account, totaling Rs. 25,00,000/. In all Rs. 6,80,00,000/ has been deposited from time to time by informant and other businessmen upon false assurance by the accused 1 in collusion with other accused persons including present applicant.
I.O. strongly objected it on the grounds that, racket at inter State level is to be busted, investigation is to be carried out with banks and witnesses, applicant may tamper or hamper prosecution witnesses and evidence.
6. Mr. More submits that, some amount has been returned to the accused 1 and only amount of Rs. 16,50,000/ is remaining the account of the present applicant of which he is ready to give bail.
According to him, his account was operated by the accused 1 and his wife and no by him. When he came to know about it, he demanded money from accused 1 who issued cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/ which also returned dishonored on its presentation of his banker. Thus, he himself is sufferer. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Hence, on above grounds, he prays for bail. To buttress his above submission, he relies upon, following citations.
(i) Jitendrakumar Devshhibhai Seth vs. State of Gujrath, R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 1685/2022, decided on 25.03.2022, Guj. In the reported case, applicants have paid Rs. 23,00,000/ towards the
amount of Tax. Hence, at para No.4 it is held that, “ The entire case is based on documentary evidence. The applicants have no any past antecedent of like nature and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicants have cooperated with the investigation. There is no possibility of their fleeing from justice and there is nothing to be tempered with the evidence. Custodial interrogation of the present applicants is not necessary. ”
(ii) Mustufa Jurjarbhai Masvi vs. State of Gujrath, R/Cr. M. A. No. 338/2022, decided on 14.02.2022, Guj. In the reported case, vehicle in question was sold to one Vipul through present applicant on commission basis. Hence, at para No.4 it is held that wherein it is held that, “ The applicant has no past antecedent of like nature. The whole case is based on documentary evidence. In this background, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not found to be essential for the purpose of investigating.”
(iii) Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Gujrath, R/Cr. M. A. No. 3659/2022, decided on 14.03.2022, Gujrath High Court In the reported case, applicant officer of the bank neither received any monetory benefits nor otherwise. Hence, at para No.4 it is held that “
Upon bare perusal of the FIR, prima facie, it appears that, entire case is based on documentary evidence. He does have any past antecedent of like nature. In this back grounds facts, the application deserves consideration.”
(iv) Bakul Naryanbhai Patel vs. State of Gujrath, R/Cr. M. A. No. 447/2022, decided on 10.02.2022, Guj. In the reported case, pursuant to the order passed by this court, the amount of FDRs having being credited in the account of complaint and his sister approximately Rs. 92,00,000/. Hence, at para No.4 it is held that, “ So far dispute of transfer of plot as referred in the FIR is concerned, is based on documentary evidence. In this back grounds facts, without entering into the merits of the case, case id made out for grant of anticipatory bail.”
Thus, factual backgrounds in the above reported cases are clearly distinguishable. Hence, they are not applicable herein.
7.Perusal of police papers reveals that, there is direct involvement of the applicant in the crime. There is every likelihood that he may hamper or tamper prosecution witness or evidence, may abscond and may not be available for investigation which is incomplete. Property is to be recovered and accused are to be arrested. Inter State investigation is to be carried out. Offences are serious in nature. For the purpose of investigation, on above grounds custodial interrogation is necessary. Huge amount i. e. Rs. 6,80,00,000/ is involved. Above grounds shown in the application are not just and satisfactory. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, this application being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
This application stands rejected.
Date:22.04.2022.
( S. T. Tripathi ) Additional Sessions Judge 7, Nashik.