Allowed

Pradeep Nagnath Ghavane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jan 2010APPLN/4980/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to three applicants allegedly defrauding a cooperative society. It held that absconding co-accused are irrelevant and noted the delayed complaint despite annual audit reports, finding no risk of evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail executing personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and monthly reporting to police.

Pradeep Nagnath Ghavane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

abs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4980 OF 2009

¶6

Pradeep Nagnath Ghavane .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

AND

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4981 OF 2009 Machindra Suresh Kadam .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶9

AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4982 OF 2009 Ajit Dnyaneshwar Ingale .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶10

Mr. V.V. Purwant for the applicants. Mr. Rupesh Bobde for the original complainant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH JANUARY 2010

¶11

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

These three bail applications are filed by three coaccused in M.C.R. No. 01/2009 registered at Kurduwadi Police Station, Solapur.

¶15

Hence, they are disposed of by a common order.

¶16

The applicants are employees of Shambhuraje Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit (for short “the Society”). On 18^th October 2008, Mr. Sunil Shahurao More, Chairman of the Society filed a complaint before the J.M.F.C., First Class, Madha alleging therein that the applicants had defrauded the Society to the extent of Rs.53,64,039/ and after inquiry they should be punished. The Magistrate passed an order under section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. directing the police (Kurduwadi Police Station) to investigate and report. The I.O. arrested the applicants on 20^th June 2009 and submitted a charge sheet on 18^th September 2009. The applicants have been charged with an offence punishable under section 408, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the I.P.C.

¶17

The application for bail made by the applicants before the Sessions Court was rejected. The applicants have therefore

¶18

¶19

approached this Court for bail.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the

¶21

investigation is complete, the chargesheet has been filed and presence of the applicants is no longer required for the purpose of investigation. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel for he original complainant opposed the bail on the ground that the fraud is of a large amount and that three other accused are absconding and therefore bail should not be granted.

¶22

The fact that three other accused are absconding, in the facts and circumstances, is not relevant for refusal of bail to these applicants. In fact, unless the trial is separated the trial would not commence and therefore there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a short period of time.

¶23

A circumstance, which is material, is that the fraud is alleged to

¶24

have been committed over the period between 1^st April 2005 and 31^st March 2008. Under section 85 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short “the Act”), accounts of the Society are required to be audited every year. Section 85(5)(b) of the Act

¶25

¶26

contemplates that in respect of a government audit, a copy of the audit memo shall be furnished to the Society. In respect of a non government audit, the auditor would always submit a report to the Society who appoints him. In either case, the Society would get a copy of the audit report soon after the conclusion of the accounting year. In spite of this, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate after lapse of nearly three years. The delay is not satisfactorily explained.

¶27

The entire evidence against the applicant is documentary. Fraud is alleged to have been committed by manipulating documents. Entire records are in possession of the Society. Therefore, there is little possibility of the applicants tampering with the records or manipulation of the documentary evidence in possession of the Society.

¶28

In the circumstances, the applicants are entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The applicants be released on bail on each of them executing personal

¶31

¶32

bond of Rs.25,000/ with two sureties of the like amount, subject to a condition that the applicants shall report to the concerned police station once a month between 1^st and 5^th day of every British calendar months.

¶33

(D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Pradeep Nagnath Ghavane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Nagnath Ghavane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babaso Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Uttam Ganpat Todkar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vasundhara Ashish Agnihotri

Ananda Kondiba Umape Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohit Shriparmeshwar Sing Vs State of Maharashtra

Sushanth Ravi Vs the State of Maharashtra