Allowed

Ganesh S/O Kakasaheb Sable v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Oct 2016APPLN/4962/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail applications for seven accused involved in a cheating survey design. Applicants, alleged agents not directors, offered to deposit amounts benefited under the charge sheet, leading the court to direct release upon deposit.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon deposit of amount benefited, execution of PR Bond of Rs. 25,000, and furnishing surety in like amount.

Ganesh s/o. Kakasaheb Sable..Applicant Age. 29 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Village Tulapur Aliyabad, Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5976 OF 2016 1.Shankar Prakash Nikam..Applicants Age. 36 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Shendurwada, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2.Arun s/o. Chandrabhan Mogal Age. 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Shivaji Nagar, 12th Scheme, Aurangabad. 3.Sandip Shridhar Bande Age. 29 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Nilajgaon Phata, House No.57, Bidkin, Tal. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.

	( 2 ) cria4962.16
`4.`	`Raviraj Jawahar Rathod` `Age. 27 years, Occ. Business,` `R/o. Gut No.63, Plot No.251,` `Satara Parisar, Aurangabad,` `Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad.` `Versus`
`The`	`State of Maharashtra & Anr.` `..` `Respondents` `WITH` `CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5995 OF 2016`
`1.`	`Rajendra s/o. Dadasaheb Bhuse,` `..` `Applicants` `Age. 35 years, Occ. Business,` `R/o. Chapadgan, Tal. Shevgaon,` `Dist. Ahmednagar.`
`2.`	`Parmeshwar Raosaheb Londhe,` `Age. 35 years, Occ. Business,` `R/o. House No.236, Shivajinagar,` `Jalna, Tal. & Dist. Jalna.`
	`Versus`
`The`	`State of Maharashtra & Anr.` `..` `Respondents`
`Mr.R` `Mr.S`	`.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants.` `.P. Sonpawale, APP for respondent/State.` `CORAM : A.M. BADAR,J.` `DATED :` `27.10.2016`
`P.C.`	`:-`
`1.`	`Applicants – Ganesh Sable, Shankar Nikam, Arun`
`Moga`	`l, Sandip Bande, Raviraj Rathod, Rajendra Bhuse and`
`Parm`	`eshwar Londhe, who are accused in Sessions Case`

( 2 )
cria4962.16

4.

Raviraj Jawahar Rathod
Age. 27 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Gut No.63, Plot No.251,
Satara Parisar, Aurangabad,
Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad.
Versus

The

State of Maharashtra & Anr.
..
Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5995 OF 2016

1.

Rajendra s/o. Dadasaheb Bhuse,
..
Applicants
Age. 35 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Chapadgan, Tal. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Parmeshwar Raosaheb Londhe,
Age. 35 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. House No.236, Shivajinagar,
Jalna, Tal. & Dist. Jalna.

Versus

The

State of Maharashtra & Anr.
..
Respondents

Mr.R
Mr.S

.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants.
.P. Sonpawale, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : A.M. BADAR,J.
DATED :
27.10.2016

P.C.

:-

1.

Applicants – Ganesh Sable, Shankar Nikam, Arun

Moga

l, Sandip Bande, Raviraj Rathod, Rajendra Bhuse and

Parm

eshwar Londhe, who are accused in Sessions Case

(MPID) No.3 of 2016, arising out of Crime No.231 of 2016, registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 107, 109, 114, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3,4(1)(ii) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and under section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, amended 2008 and under sections 4,5 and 6 of the Prize Cheats and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, by these applications, are seeking their release on bail, after filing of charge-sheet.

2.Heard learned Counsel for applicants/accused. He argued that in-fact applicants are investors in the company. They are not Directors of the company. The prosecution is alleging that they are Agents, promoting business of the company. Learned Counsel further argued that charge-sheet shows the amount by which each applicant is benefited and all applicants are ready to deposit the entire amount standing against their name in the charge-sheet, with the concerned Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant further argued that yesterday i.e. on 26.10.2016, applicants have approached the concerned Special Judge by moving appropriate application for accepting the deposit of amount from applicants and

4.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the charge-sheet. As per the charge-sheet, applicant – Ganesh Sabale is financially benefited by Rs.2,17,600/-, applicant - Shankar Nikam is financially benefited by Rs.4,49,248/-, applicant – Arun Mogal is financially benefited by Rs.4,63,578/-, applicant – Sandip Bande is financially benefited by Rs.8,28,608/-, applicant – Raviraj Rathod is financially benefited by Rs. 1,01,600/-, applicant – Rajendra Bhuse is financially benefited by Rs.5,41,408/- and applicant – Parmeshwar Londhe is financially benefited by Rs.1,40,800/-. Learned Counsel for applicants submits that as learned Special Judge refused to accept deposit of amounts from applicants, if this Court directs, all applicants are ready and willing to deposit the entire amount by which they are allegedly benefited in this crime before the

Special Court at Aurangabad. Considering the fact that applicants are not directors of the company in question and the role attributed to them is canvassing for business of the company and financial returns for services rendered by them, in the interest of justice, applicants may be permitted to do so. If applicants make necessary application for depositing the entire amount standing against them in the charge-sheet, then the learned Special Court should accept the deposit of said amounts from applicants.

5.According to the prosecution case as reflected from the charge-sheet, accused No.1 – Dipak Suryawanshi and his wife – Kalyani Suryawanshi were Directors of Dees Trulife Vision Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. Certificate of the IDBI Bank on record page No.408 is clear on this aspect. It is, thus, clear that none of the applicant was director of the said company.

6.Statements of P.S.I. Khandagale, Kishor Pol, Sidharth Gangawane, Ashok Khare and others show that present applicants were virtually acting as Agents of the Dees Trulife Vision Private Limited and were canvassing for investment in the said company, which was allegedly doing business of multi-level marketing. According to

the prosecution case, each investor in the said company was required to make other persons as members of multi- level marketing and for that purpose various groups named as Rubi Club, Silver Club, Gold Club, Platinum Club were formed. Investors were allured with assurance of rosy returns and foreign trips. In this way, according to the prosecution case, 5415 investors were allured to deposit amounts in the said company. Present applicants are stated to be members of groups in the name of several clubs formed by the company. Statements of witnesses show that they were promoting others to invest in the company.

7.The investigation of the crime in question is over. The amount amassed allegedly by each applicant as per prosecution case is being deposited by applicants before the learned Special Court, as per willingness shown by them. In this view of the matter, further pre- trial detention of present applicants is not warranted. As such the following order :-

Sable, Shankar Prakash Nikam, Arun s/o. Chandrabhan Mogal, Sandip Shridhar Bande, Raviraj Jawahar Rathod, Rajendra Dadasaheb Bhuse and Parmeshwar Raosaheb Londhe, in Sessions Case (MPID) No.3 of 2016, arising out of Crime No.231 of 2016, registered with MIDC, Waluj Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 107, 109, 114, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3,4(1)(ii) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and under section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, amended 2008 and under sections 4,5 and 6 of the Prize Cheats and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, after depositing the entire amount standing against their names in the charge-sheet with the learned Special Judge (MPID), Aurangabad, be released on bail on executing P.R.Bond of Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand] and on furnishing surety in the like amount, by each of them.

Ganesh S/O Kakasaheb Sable v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh S/O Kakasaheb Sable v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Haji Abdul Munaf Shaikh Ahmed Pinjari Vs Amjad Khan Mohammad Khan and Anr.

Balasaheb S/O Kundlik Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi @ Ravindra S/O Raju Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kantaprasad S/O Balaprasad Zawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Umakant S/O Vishwanath Dhonde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra S/O Dadasaheb Bhuse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.