Mumbai, January 17, 2024 – In a significant ruling from the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, Deepchandra Sureshbahadur Gaud, embroiled in a case of alleged misappropriation, has been granted regular bail. The decision came in relation to Crime Register No. 530/2023, registered at Chunabhatti police station, where Gaud was accused under Sections 408 (Criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant) and 120(B) (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from a complaint lodged by Asif Barkat Ali Shaikh, who accused Sonu Matre (accused No.1) of misappropriating Rs. 16,06,000 collected from various individuals under the guise of business transactions. The FIR detailed that Sonu collected funds from Wajid Ansari, Arif Ansari, Prakash Gupta, and Shamim Ansari but failed to return the money to the complainant or the owner, leading to charges of conspiracy and misappropriation.
Court Proceedings:
Deepchandra Gaud, represented by Mr. Sainath Bhaji @ Mr. Ravishankar Dwivedi, argued that he was not directly involved with the complainant or the business in question, hence not implicated in the primary act of misappropriation. The defense emphasized Gaud’s non-involvement in the financial dealings, arguing that no money was recovered from him during the investigation, which primarily focused on accused No.1, Sonu.
The prosecution, represented by Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, opposed the bail, citing fears of witness tampering and the possibility of Gaud absconding if released. The investigating officer pointed out that the recovery of Rs. 15,98,000 was made from Sonu, indicating the severity of the crime and the ongoing nature of the investigation.
Judicial Decision:
After hearing both sides, Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar deliberated on several key points:
- Lack of Direct Involvement: The FIR did not name Gaud initially, and subsequent allegations against him were based on his association with other accused rather than direct evidence of misappropriation.
- Recovery and Investigation: With most of the misappropriated amount recovered and no further recovery expected from Gaud, his continued detention seemed unnecessary.
- Duration of Detention: Gaud had been in custody since December 10, 2023, and with the investigation appearing to be at an advanced stage, his further detention was deemed unnecessary.
- Bail Conditions: The judge granted bail on several conditions including regular reporting to the police station, providing residential and contact details, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not leaving the country without court permission.
Gaud was directed to furnish a Personal Recognizance Bond of Rs.50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
Implications of the Ruling:
This decision underscores the judiciary’s stance on assessing the necessity of detention based on the progress of the investigation and the role of the accused in the crime. It highlights a cautious approach towards pre-trial detention, especially when direct involvement in the crime is not fully substantiated against all accused. The case continues to be monitored, with the possibility of bail cancellation if any of the conditions are breached.
The court’s order was signed on January 18, 2024, marking a pivotal moment in what has been a closely watched legal battle in the local community.