Allowed

Sudeep Kumar Ganesh Khanna v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013BA/398/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay granted bail to the accused, a 62-year-old senior citizen, charged with offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 477 IPC. The court held that detention was no longer necessary after the charge-sheet, provided strict conditions were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on Rs. 5,00,000 with conditions including 15-day cash bail window, fortnightly reporting, residential restriction, and prohibition on tampering with evidence or fleeing.

Sudeep Kumar Ganesh Khanna Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

BA-398-13.sxw

¶2

Dixit

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.398 OF 2013

¶5

Sudeep Kumar Ganesh Khanna V/s.	...	Applicant
State of Maharashtra,
Thru’ EOW, Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai	...	Respondent

¶6

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate, i/by Mrs. R.R. Dhuru, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mrs. S.V. Sonawane, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2013.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Leave to amend prayer clause (a) by correcting Case No.1119/PW/2012 in C.R. No.98 of 2012 registered by EOW, Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai (earlier registered at Sahar Police Station as F.I.R. No.358 of 2012).

¶11

The Applicant is applying for bail in connection with F.I.R. No.358 of 2012 registered at Sahar Police Station, Mumbai and which came to be handed over for further investigation to the Economic Offences Wing and registered as C.R. No.98 of 2012 by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 477 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The Applicant is a senior citizen aged 62 years. He has been detained in custody since 11^th November, 2012. He was in police custody till 23^rd November, 2012 and thereafter he is in judicial custody. He is Original Accused No.5.

¶13

1/4

¶14

BA-398-13.sxw

¶15

From a reading of the complaint, it is clear that the allegations are that there is a group of companies called Bhatiya Group. It has several projects. Its Chief Financial Officer intimated the Board of Directors that several persons approached the Company and induced the Complainant into parting with sums for the purposes of investing in projects and assurance was given that the projects would be handed over to this Group of Companies. In that endeavour, several payments have been made and the amounts have been utilized by all such persons including the present Applicant for their own benefit and by making false documents.

¶16

To my mind, even if the allegations are taken to be serious and involving white collared criminals so also the magnitude of the crime being enormous having involvement of sum of Rs.60 crores approximately, still, after the Applicant was arrested in November, 2012 and is in custody since then, after the Charge-Sheet being filed, his detention is no longer necessary. By imposing appropriate conditions and even if he is involved in several such cases, he can be enlarged on bail. The documents have been seized. Even necessary prohibitory steps, including attaching Bank Accounts, have been taken. In such circumstances, the following order is passed :-

¶17

“O R D E R”

¶18

(i) The Applicant is enlarged on bail in C.R. No.98 of 2012 on the file of G.B.C.B., C.I.D. in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶19

(ii) For a period of fifteen days from today, the Applicant will be entitled to file a cash bail.

¶20

2/4

¶21

BA-398-13.sxw

¶22

(iii) The Applicant will have to furnish one or two sureties in the like amount after that period.

¶23

(iv) The Applicant shall report to the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai once in a fortnight.

¶24

(v) However, the Applicant will not be given benefit of this order, nor can he avail of bail unless he notifies the Investigating Officer the residential address at which he is going to reside in Mumbai and he will not leave that residential address or change it without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer and until the trial is concluded.

¶25

(vi) The Applicant shall deposit his Passport, if any, with the Trial Court.

¶26

(vii) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement and/or influence and/or pressurize or cause any threat or give any promise to anybody acquainted with the facts of accusations made against the Applicants so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts either to the Court or to the Investigating Agency or to any Police Officer.

¶27

(viii) The Applicant shall not tamper, in any manner whatsoever, with the prosecution evidence whatever.

¶28

(ix) The Applicant shall not commit similar or any other offence while on bail.

¶29

3/4

¶30

BA-398-13.sxw

¶31

(x) The Applicant shall co-operate with the learned Trial Judge in expeditious disposal of the case.

¶32

(xi) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial.

¶33

(xii) It is made clear that any violation or breach of the conditions, which are imposed, shall entail in cancellation of bail.

¶34

The Criminal Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶35

(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

¶36

4/4

Sudeep Kumar Ganesh Khanna v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeep Kumar Ganesh Khanna 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

Bharat Dattaram Amre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Vilas Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish @ Surya Kaliram Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Shrinivas @ Raju Gupte Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Acb

Rahul Shivaji Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Shivaji Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra