Allowed

Pramod Shridhar Bade v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC14 Sept 2012APPLN/3236/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal applications for bail filed by three accused persons in a money circulation case involving sections of the IPC and Prize Chits Act. The court granted regular bail with bond and conditions regarding territorial jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to Pramod Bade and Kanaiyya Kasar on Rs. 30,000 surety each; anticipatory bail granted to Ravindra Patil on Rs. 20,000 surety. Conditional release: territorial restriction for two

Pramod Shridhar Bade Vs the State of Mah — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3356 OF 2012

¶4

Ravindra S/o Shivgouda Patil, ...APPLICANT.

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS.

¶7

...

¶8

 Shri A.V.Patil Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri P.P.More, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶9

...

¶10

 WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3236 OF 2012

¶12

Pramod Shrihari Bade, ...APPLICANT.

¶13

 VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS.

¶14

...

¶15

 Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate holding for
 Shri V.M.Chate,Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri P.P.More, A.P.P. for Respondent.
 Shri Hemant Surve,Advocate for Complainant-
 intervenor.

¶16

...

¶17

WITH

¶18

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3284 OF 2012

¶19

Kanaiyya Madhukar Kasar, ...APPLICANT.

¶20

 VERSUS

¶21

The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS.

¶22

2 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶23

...

¶24

 Shri V.M.Damle, Advocate holding for
 Shri P.R.Dhase,Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri P.P.More, A.P.P. for Respondent.
 Shri Hemant Surve,Advocate for Complainant-
 intervenor.

¶25

...

¶26

DATE : 14.09.2012.

¶27

PER COURT :

¶28

1. Heard.

¶29

2. All the applications have arisen out of same

¶30

crime bearing no. 183 of 2012 registered with
Tophkahan Police Station Ahmednagar for the
offencespunishableunderSections406,

¶31

420,409,384, 465, 467, 468 read with section 34 of

¶32

the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 5 and

¶33

6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme

¶34

(Banning) Act 1978 and Section of 5 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors
Act, 1999.

¶35

3 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶36

3. Criminal Application No. 3356 of 2012 is

¶37

filed by Ravindra Shivgouda Patil for releasing
him on anticipatory bail, while rest of the two
applications are for regular bail.

¶38

4. The complaint was filed by Dr. Parvez Umar

¶39

of Ahmednagar. In the complaint, he alleged that
one Cree. S.L. Private Ltd. Co. Daund had floated

¶40

pension plan. His friend Avinash Pawar, one
another person and Mr. Ujagare gave information
regarding said plan. According to her, the
customer had to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,000/-
against which a Set-top box of the Videocon T.V.
was to be allotted to the customers, on which
recharge Rs. 200/- was to be given free of costs
for a period of ten years. Not only this, after
three months the customers would get incentive
bonus of Rs. 500/-, Rs.2500/- after every three

¶41

months which on expiry of 21 months would be of
Rs.97,65,500/-, out of that amount, 10% TDS and
15% towards pension would be deducted and balance
would be paid to the customers. In the

¶42

4 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶43

circumstances, the complainant along with said Mr.

¶44

Avinash Pawar and Mr. Ujgare went to the office of
the Company at Daund and contacted Mr. Rahul
Abane. At that time along with said Rahul,
Ravindra Patil (i.e. applicant in Criminal
Application no. 3356 of 2012) was present. Rahul

¶45

Abane represented the applicants that said Mr.
Ravindra Patil is also working like him for the

¶46

company, in the area of Latur, Osmanabad,
Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara etc. and also in the
States of Madhya Pradesh and Karnatka. One
Jagdish Shinde was also present at that time.
Said Mr. Abane introduced them as his agents
working at various places. Said Mr. Patil as well

¶47

as Mr. Shinde also gave details of the plan.
Accordingly, the complainant as well as his friend
Shaikh invested amount of Rs. 12,000/- and
Rs. 15,000/- each on 02.05.2011 at Ahmednagar

¶48

branch of the Company. Receipts to that effect
were passed. At that time post dated cheques of

¶49

six months and nine months were also passed by
company in their favour, with indication not to

¶50

5 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶51

deposit the cheques in the bank. The complainant,

¶52

however, deposited one of the cheques and same was
encashed. However, thereafter, no amount was
disbursed even after expiry of one year despite
visits to office of the company, either by the
complainant or his friend. In the circumstances,

¶53

10 to 12 days prior to filing of the present
complaint, on 22.05.2012 the complainant went to
the Ahmednagar office of the company, as he came
to know that Rahul had come to the office of the
company. At that time Branch Manager Mr. Kanaiyya
Kasar and Dr. Bade were present. Said Kanaiyya is
seeking regular bail upon his arrest on 22.05.2012
in Criminal Application NO. 3284 of 2012, while
Dr. Pramod Bade is also seeking regular bail in
Criminal Application NO. 3236 of 2012 upon his
arrest on the same date.

¶54

5. The complainant alleged that, when he made
demand of amount to applicant Kanaiyya Kasar, at
that time said Kanaiyya and Pramod Bade raised
dispute. Mr. Rahul Abane, Director of the Company

¶55

6 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶56

told them that if complainant would make five more
members in working out the plan, they will get
money as promised. In the circumstances, the
complaint came to be filed.

¶57

6. In the present case charge-sheet is filed.
Mr. Rahul Abane, Director is behind bar, another
Director i.e. his wife Mrs. Nutan Rahul Abane is
released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions
Court, principally on the ground that she is only
a Director for the name sake. During the
investigation,Investigating Officer has recorded
statement of Subhash Ghorpade on 23.05.2012. His
statement shows that applicant Dr. Pramod Bade
had given detailed information about plan.
Statement of Subhash Ghorpade further shows that
Dr. Pramod Bade even took amount from him and
deposited in the office of said company and passed
the receipt. Similarly, his brother Rajendra also
deposited amount through Mr. Pramod Bade.
Thereafter, according to him, no amount was paid
as promised.

¶58

7 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶59

7. We have another statement of Mr.Vaibhav

¶60

Sudamae, who was working in Maharashtra at Dound
office of Company, recorded by the Investigating
Officer on 23.05.2012. The witness, inter-alia,
has described the role played in the episode, by
the applicants Mr.Kanaiyya Kasar and Mr. Pramod
Bade, working as Manager of Ahmednagar Branch as
well was working as agent at various places
respectively.

¶61

8. Learned respective counsel for the applicants

¶62

submit that so far as applicant Mr.Rahul Patil is
concerned, he has not played any role and he was
merely present at the time when certain incident
had occurred. He is also one of the victim
insofar as activities of the company in money
circulation plan is concerned. He himself has
deposited certain amount in the scheme. He
further relied upon the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, releasing one of the
Directors i.e. Mrs. Nutan Abane, who is wife of
Mr. Rahul Abane on anticipatory bail and submits

¶63

8 Cri.A.3356.12+2 that present applicants be released on

¶64

anticipatory bail.

¶65

9.Learned counsel for the applicants in

¶66

remaining two cases submitted that both of them
are behind bar since 22.05.2012. The charge-sheet
is filed. The investigation is complete. The
role of these applicants as detailed in the FIR as
well as the statements of the witnesses would show
that since Mr. Kasar was employee i.e. Branch
Manager of Ahmednagar Branch, Dr. Bade bonafidely
believed him and had participated in the scheme.
In the circumstances, learned counsel submits
that relief as prayed for be granted.

¶67

10. Learned APP and learned counsel for the
complainant-intervenors submits that record would
show that numerous customers were deceived in
staggering amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores ,which is
invested in the scheme floated by the said
company. Therefore, they submit that evidence on
record would show the role of the accused, who are

¶68

9 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶69

already arrested. Dr. Bade, one of the

¶70

applicants, was active member of the company, who
along with Rahul Abane was working as agent in
Maharashtra and Karnatka for company while Mr.
Kasar, Branch Manager knowing full well, had
participated in duping numerous customers.

¶71

11. Mr. Hon, the learned counsel in support of

¶72

his submission relied upon the judgment in the
case ofSanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureao of
Investigation reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. 702 Suresh
G Motwani (Dr.) and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another reported in 2004(Supp)

¶73

Bom. Cr. 521. The Supreme Court in the case of
Sanjay Chandra made following observations in para
No. 21 of the Judgment

¶74

“21. The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by this Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC 281: (AIR 2009 SC 1362) thus(Paras 13 to 16 of AIR):

¶75

10 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶76

6. “Bail” remains an undefined term

¶77

in Cr.P.C. Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined.

¶78

Conceptually, it continues to be understood as a right for assertion of freedom against the State imposing restraints. Since the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, to which India is a signatory, the concept of bail has found a place within the scope of human rights. The dictionary meaning of the expression “bail” denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner for his re-lease. Etymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb “bailer” which means to “give” or “to deliver”, although another view is that its derivation is from the latin term “baiulare” meaning “to bear a burden” bail is a conditional liberty. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary(4^th Edn. 1971) spells out certain other details. It states:

¶79

“...When a man is taken or arrested for felony, suspicion of felony, indicated of felony, or any such case, so that he is restrained of his

¶80

11 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶81

liberty. And, being by law bailable, offereth surety to those which have authority to bail him, which sureties are bound for him to the King's use in a certain sums of money or body for body, that he shall appear before the justices of goal delivery at the next sessions, etc. Then upon the bounds of these sureties, as is aforesaid, he is bailed- that is to say, set at liberty until the day appointed for his appearance.”

¶82

Bail may thus be regarded as mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function of securing the presence of the prisoners, and at the same time involves participation of the community in administration of justice.

¶83

7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the

¶84

12 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶85

personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restrain on others to keep off from us , the more liberty we have (see A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27).

¶86

8. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to

¶87

13 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶88

restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt.”

¶89

12. In the case of Suresh Motwani, the learned
Single of this Court has underlined the principle
that bail cannot be denied merely for the purpose
of recovery.

¶90

13. The material on record would go to show that
so far as applicant Ravindra in Criminal
Application No. 3356 of 2012 is concerned, he has
not played active role in the alleged transaction.
Both sides submit that main culprit Mr. Rahul
Abane, Director is behind bar, while his wife is
released on anticipatory bail.

¶91

14. Considering all these facts on record and
finding that charge-sheet is filed and both the
applicants in the two cases are behind the bar

¶92

14 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶93

since 22.05.2012, in my view both the applicants
can be released on bail on certain conditions. In

¶94

the circumstances, following order is passed.

¶95

(i) All the applications are allowed.

¶96

(ii) Applicant, namely, Ravindra Shivgouda Patil
(in Criminal Application NO. 3356 of 2012), in the
event of his arrest, in Crime No. 183 of 2012
registeredwith Tophkhana PoliceStation
Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 409, 384, 465, 467 and 468 read
with section 34 of the Indian be released on bail
upon his furnishing P.R.bond of Rs. 20,000/- and
on furnishing surety in the like amount. For a
period of eight weeks from the date of this
order, he shall attend the Police Station, as and
when reasonably called by the Investigating
Officer.

¶97

(iii)Applicant, namely, Pramod Shridhar Bade
(in Criminal Application NO. 3236 of 2012), in

¶98

15 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶99

Crime No. 183 of 2012 registered with Tophkhana
Police Station Ahmednagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 384, 465,
467 and 468 read with section 34 of the Indian, be
released on bail upon his furnishing P.R.bond of
Rs. 30,000/- and on furnishing surety in the like
amount. The applicant for a period of two years
from the date of this order shall not leave
territorial jurisdiction of Ahmednagar District
without prior permission of the Court, where the
charge-sheet is filed.

¶100

(iv) Applicant, namely, Kanaiyya Madhukar Kasar
(in Criminal Application NO. 3284 of 2012), in
Crime No. 183 of 2012 registered with Tophkhana
Police Station Ahmednagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 384, 465,
467 and 468 read with section 34 of the Indian, be
released on bail upon his furnishing P.R.bond of
Rs. 30,000/- and on furnishing surety in the like
amount. The applicant for a period of two years

¶101

from the date of this order shall not leave

¶102

16 Cri.A.3356.12+2

¶103

territorial jurisdiction of Ahmednagar District
without prior permission of the Court, where the
charge-sheet is filed.

¶104

Sd/-

¶105

MTK

Pramod Shridhar Bade v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Shridhar Bade v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raviraj Yuvraj Fulmali Vs the State of Mah

Arun Narayanrao Shinde Vs the State of Mah

Suresh Bhikamchand Jain Vs the State of Mah

Kanaiyya Madhukar Kasar Vs the State of Mah

Ravindra Shivgouda Patil Vs the State of Mah

Digambar Ramdas Panchal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.