Tejas Bunty Suresh Wagh Vs State of Maharashtra Nashik Sessions Court Bail Application 407 of 2022

CNR No.MHNS010014232022

Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.407 /2022

( Tejas @ Bunty @ Suresh Wagh – applicant/accused 2 Vs. State )

This is an application, for pre­arrest bail u/s. 438 of the Cr.P.C. in C.R. No.95 of 2022 registered with Panchavati Police Station, Nashik u/ss. 420 r/w.34 of The Indian Penal Code(IPC).

2.The learned counsel Mr. S.R. Inmadar for the applicant submits that, applicant is innocent person and he 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.

3.Learned A.P.P. Mr. R.M. Baghdane, by filing pursis (Exh.5) adopted say (Exh.4) filed by Investigation officer (I.O.) and strongly objected this application. I.O. is present alongwith police case papers.

4.Perused record. Prosecution case is that, accused persons in collusion with each other cheated the informant and received Rs. 7,00,000/­ on the pretext of giving more than triple amount of Rs. 23,00,000/­. However,they did not pay any amount. Renuka Divekar accused 1 introduced complainant to Tejas @ Bunty @ Suresh Wagh accused 2, upon whose instructions, complainant showed money of his bag. Thereafter, one silver colour Tavera vehicle came there. One person got down who was introduced as Yogesh @ Mhasoba accused 3 by Renuka accused 1 who would give triple amount. Two more persons from Tavera got down, Yogesh accused 3 took money bag of Rs. 7,00,000/­ of complainant and Tejas @ Bunty @ Suresh Wagh accused 2, Yogesh @ Mhasoba accused 3 and his two friends fled away from Tavera. Two other persons were also sitting in Tavera.

5.In the present case the money of misappropriation / cheating and vehicle used in the crime are yet to be recovered. Offence is serious. There direct involvement of applicant. Co­accused are yet to be arrested. The applicant may hamper or tamer prosecution witnesses or evidence and may abscond. Custodial interrogation is necessary for thorough investigation. Consequently, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the order.

ORDER

This application stands rejected.

( S.T. Tripathi) Date : 21.04. 2022. Additional Sessions Judge­ 7, Nashik.