Court rejected anticipatory bail application of an accused suspected of fraud and misappropriation totaling Rs.4.48 crore. Despite name absent in FIR, court held applicant played specific role and custodial interrogation was necessary.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected; custodial interrogation directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
7 ABA 729 OF 2014
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.729 OF 2014.
Atul Bhairavnath Khupase .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. V. V. Purwant, for the Applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the respondent State. Mr. P.G. Sarda, for the intervener.
CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATE : 15th July, 2014
P.C.
Application is moved for pre-arrest
bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for anticipatory bail. One
Vivekanand Basappa Umbarje, lodged report
against applicant accused and other accused on
28.3.2013 with Akkalkot Police Station, District: Solapur which is registered at
C.R.No.54 of 2013 for the offences punishable
under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 427, 120(B)
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page No.1 of 6
7 ABA 729 OF 2014
It is the case of the complainant that he is
one of the Directors of Swami Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., situated at Dahitane, Tal. Akkalkot. The Managing Director Pralhad Lavand is the principal accused in this case. He was assigned the work of bringing labourers and he used to ask contractors for cutting sugarcane and also arranges the vehicles i.e. bullock carts for the purpose of transporting the sugarcane in a particular season. It was found that in the season of October, 2012, there was not only mismanagement, but there was fraud played on sugar factory by Pralhad Lawand and present applicant. While employing the labourers and contractors for the purpose of cutting sugarcane and transporting sugar cane, the work was not done properly and no procedure was followed. A particular amount was sanctioned for the purpose of payment of
these labourers and so also transport contractors of the sugar cane. However, it was
Page No.2 of 6
found that the principal accused alongwith applicant accused has prepared forged documents and committed fraud. The amount was not directly paid to the contractors but the same was sent in their own account and thus, there was misappropriation of nearly an amount of Rs.4,48,77,924/-. Hence the complaint was lodged against Managing Director Pralhad Lawand and others.
by Vivekanand Umbarje, the name of the applicant accused is not mentioned. All the allegations were against principal accused Pralhad Lawand who was the Managing Director. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was just companion of the principal accused. Therefore, he is suspected and is roped in this offence. The learned counsel has further submitted that he did not commit any offence much less offence of fraud and
Page No.3 of 6
7 ABA 729 OF 2014
forgery. The amounts were not taken by him.
The learned counsel drew my attention to the order passed by this Court on 20th December, 2013, while granting bail to principal accused Pralhad Lawand in Criminal Bail Application No.2095 of 2013. He pointed out that in paragraph No.4 of the said order and submitted that an amount of Rs.4 crore is recovered,
remaining amount of 2 crore is to be
recovered. However, the principal accused was released on bail. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Sessions Judge while rejecting his application by order dated 23.4.2014 has erroneously relied on the statement of the prosecution witnesses that
the amounts were taken in the name of Dileeqp Yadav and Ramchandra Gosavi. However, these two persons have already deposited the amounts
in the sugar factory by demand draft dated 28.6.2013. Receipts to that effect were issued
by the sugar factory and the copies of said
Page No.4 of 6
7 ABA 729 OF 2014
receipts are annexed to this bail application. He submitted that the applicant accused has worked with this accused only for 52 days as sugarcane supplier from 18.8.2012 to 9.10.2012
and as principal accused is released on bail and the applicant not to be held responsible and is to be protected by pre-arrest bail.
The Investigating officer has recorded statements of some witnesses especially Bharat
Rao and Indu Dhawan. In the statements, witnesses have stated that the applicant accused alongwith principal accused has taken amounts of Rs.50,000/-. They both have taken
an amount of Rs.3 lacs from his brother. The
said amount was not deposited by the applicant accused and co-accused in the sugar factory.
Page No.5 of 6
7 ABA 729 OF 2014
So also there is allegation that his truck was
not used in the transport at Swami Samarth
Sugar factory, but they have taken said truck to Akluj.
witnesses. It is true that Pralhad Lawand is
the principal accused in this case and in one
applicant accused has worked only for 52 days with principal accused, however, the entire fraud and misappropriation has taken place during that period and as per the statement of one Bharat Rai, the applicant accused was right hand of the principal accused and there are specific allegations of misappropriation
and cheating by the applicant alongwith principal accused; I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the application is required. Application is rejected.
(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Page No.6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant alleging involvement in fraud and misappropriation, despite name absence in FIR.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given specific allegations against the applicant made by witnesses.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Atul Bhairavnath Khupase
The State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhaskar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
