BA No.1804/2022
..1..

Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1804 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC02­009787­2022 )
Balwant Shankar Sable
Age: 56 Yrs, Occ: Nil
R/o: Plot No. 11/ N/9 Shivajinar Gowandi
Mumbai ­400 043
…Applicant/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of E.O.W,
Vide C.R. No. 51/2020
Original C.R. No. 346/2020
Registered at BKC Police Station
Mumbai)
…Respondent/State.

Appearance:­
Mr. N.M.Sangle, Adv. for the Applicant/Accused.
Mrs. Ashwini Raykar for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE,
ADDL. S.JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 05/08/2022.
ORDER
1.

This is an application filed by applicant/accused Balwant
Shankar Sable for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.1973, in Crime
No.51/2020 U/sec 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC, registered
at E.O.W, Mumbai.
Facts in brief are as under :­
2.

Complainant Rakesh Kothari, Vice President CITY Bank Mumbai,
BA No.1804/2022
..2..

Order
lodged report that Anil Kapoor who is Managing Director of M/s ABK
Industries has cheated the bank by Rs.20 Crores by submitting false
Invoice, Bill of exchange and other documents without purchasing
anything from M/s Kanchan Enterprises, whose proprietor is the
applicant Balwant Sable. Based on these allegations, offence came to be
registered against applicant and others.
3.

Adv. N.M.Sangle for the applicant submitted that accused is
innocent and has not committed any offence. He was not party to the
loan agreement between the M/s ABK Industries and CITI bank. Bank
has already taken action under SARFAESI Act, against the accused No.1.
Applicant was previously working with M/s ABK Industries and
thereafter started his own business under name and style M/s. Kanchan
Enterprises. Applicant also stated that notice under section 41 and 41­A
was issued to him and hence, there is violation of law and he is entitled
for bail on that ground also.
4.

Mrs. Ashwini Raykar, APP for the State strongly opposed the
application on various grounds. Investigating officer was present at the
time of hearing of this bail application. He also addressed about facts
revealed during investigation and prayed for rejection of bail
application.
5. I perused the voluminous chargesheet and heard the Advocate for
the applicant and S.P.P. for the State. I have gone through the Law laid
down in respect of grant or refusal of bail, in following cases by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court :
1]
Sanjay Chandra ­Vs­ C.B.I., 2011 (13) SCALE 107,
(2012) 1 SCC 40;
BA No.1804/2022
..3..

Order
2]
Moti Ram ­Vs­ State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47;
3]
Babu Singh ­Vs­ State of U.P., (1978)1 SCC 579;
4]
Vaman Narain Ghiya ­Vs­ State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC
281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre ­Vs­ State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC
694,
6]
VivekKumar­Vs­ State of U. P., (2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati ­Vs­ NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. ­Vs­ Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati .Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh .Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978)1 SCC118.

11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar .Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002)3 SCC 98
13]
Puran .Vs. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.

14]
Neeru Yadav .Vs. State of UP,AIR 2015 SC 3703
15]
Sharad Kumar..Vs…C.B.I, MANU/DE/2374/2011
17]
Bhadresh .Vs. state of Bihar , (2016)1SCC 152
18]
Bharat Choudhary .Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77
19]
Munish Bhasin .Vs. State (NCT), (2009)4 SCC 45
20]
Niranjan Singh .vs. Prabhakar Kharote AIR 1980 SC 785,
21]
State of M.P. .Vs. RamKishna Balothia AIR 1995 SC 1198
22]
Pokar Ram .Vs. State of Raj.AIR 1985 SC 969
23]
Samunder Singh .Vs. State of Raj. AIR 1987 SC 737
24]
Ravindra Saxena .Vs. State of Raj. (2010)1 SCC 684
25]
Pravinbhai Patel .Vs. State of Gujarat (2010)7 SCC 598
BA No.1804/2022
..4..

Order
26]
Ram Govind Upadhay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 8,
27]
State of Mah. .Vs. Anand Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625,
28]
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani .Vs. State of U.P. (2006)9 SCC 425)
29]
Sushila Aggarwal vs State ( NCT) (2020) 5 SCC 1
30]
Arnab Goswami vs State of Mah. (2020) ALL MR( Cri) 4347
31]
Mohammad Zubair vs State of NCT,Cri.W.P.279/ 2022 (SC)
32]
Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI SLP(Cri) 5191/2021( SC)
Dt.11.7.2022
and considered following factors while deciding this bail application :
(i)
Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii)
Nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)
Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)
Character, Behaviour, Means, Position and Standing of the
accused;
(vi)
Likelihood of the offence being repeated.

(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with
and
(viii) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

6.

In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the
chargesheet. On perusal of the same, it is found that present applicant
BA No.1804/2022
..5..

Order
is the proprietor of M/s Kanchan Enterprises. False bills, bills of
exchange, invoices, Lorry receipts, tax receipts in favour of M/s ABK
Industries though nothing was sold by him were prepared. In fact, firm
of applicant is not doing any business. Raghav Kapoor who is Managing
Director of M/s ABK Industries submitted those documents to CITI
Bank. Total 8 Letters of Credits( In short L.C.) in the name of M/s
Kanchan Enterprises were found to be false and without actual purchase
of materials. This fact was known to the present applicant. The amount
of letter of Credit was credited to the account of M/s Kanchan
Enterprises in ICICI Bank and said amount was further transferred in
the account of M/s Trimp Industries, in the month of May, 2018. Wife
of this applicant is proprietor of M/s Trimp Industries. Address of M/s
Kanchan Enterprises and M/s Trimp Industries is one and same. When
bank officers visited the said firms, it is found that there are no such
firms and address is of slum area. In this way accused No.1 Raghav
Kapoor and accused No.2 i.e applicant cheated the CITI bank by Rs. 10,
26,78,723/­. In this way applicant actively participated in the
commission of offence. So far as allegations of non issuance of notice to
applicant under section 41 and 41 A of Cr.P.C by Investigating officer is
concerned, wife of applicant was present in the Court at the time of
hearing and when she was asked specifically by this Court, she stated
that she had received notice from police and it was given to applicant
and applicant had appeared before the police for his statement. She has
no reason to state false. Hence, it is prima facie proved that notice was
issued to applicant/accused by Investigating officer.

7.

Considering all above facts on record, role attributed to this
applicant, I have come to conclusion that applicant/accused is not
BA No.1804/2022
..6..

Order
entitled for bail and if he is released on bail there is every possibility of
getting absconded as he resides in slum area. Hence, I pass following
order.
ORDER
BA No.1804/2022 is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO MENJOGE
MENJOGE
Date:
2022.08.05
16:43:58 +0530
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 05.08.2022.
: 05.08.2022.
: 05.08.2022.

( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

BA No.1804/2022
..7..

Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
05.08.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)

Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
S.M. MENJOGE,(C.R.No.17)
Addl. Judge,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 05.08.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
05.08.2022.

Order uploaded on
05.08.2022.