The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a husband and wife accused of misappropriating company funds and cheating, noting lack of documentary evidence and no role for the applicant wife in decision-making.
Released on bail on furnishing PR bonds of Rs.25,000 each with one or two sureties and to attend police when called.
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.
02-aba-203-19 with 211-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.203 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1145 OF 2019
Vijay Manik Desai .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1141 OF 2019
Sangita @ Vijaya Vijay Desai .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent -----
CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :28th AUGUST, 2019
P.C. :
order because they arise out of the same crime.
V.B.Gokhale
1 of 7
02-aba-203-19 with 211-19.odt
they are referred to by their names for the sake of convenience. The applicant in ABA No.203/19 is Vijay Desai and applicant in ABA No.211/19 is Sangita @ Vijaya Desai. The FIR is lodged pursuant to the order passed U/s.156(3) of the Cr.p.c. in a private complaint filed by one Shahaji Karande who was the authorized officer of the complainant company GDK Foods Pvt. Ltd. It is the case of the prosecution that there were five directors in the GDK Foods Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Ranjitsinh Ghatge, Sumitradevi Ghatge, Sunetradevi Ghatge, Pratik Desai, Adarsh Jadhav and Vijaya Desai (applicant Vijaya @ Sangita Desai) in the year 2017. The applicant Vijay is Proprietor of Bahubali Rice Mills. The complaint mentions that the applicant Sangita @ Vijaya and applicant's son Pratik were taken on the Board of Directors because of their professional knowledge. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicants along with their sons Pratik and Digvijay have cheated the complainant company to the tune of Rs.1,85,86,722.13. The complaint mentions that Bahubali Rice Mills was supposed to conduct processing of paddy and sale the finished product further. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused did not submit the
2 of 7
V.B.Gokhale
02-aba-203-19 with 211-19.odt
details of their own transactions. The complainant has relied on the Audit report in respect of the audit conducted by Chartered Accountants F.M.Mulla Associates. Certain observations from the audit report are mentioned in the complaint. The basic allegations are that the accused had not given account of their business and the accused had misappropriated money unauthorisedly. According to complaint, the accused has acted against the interest of the complainant company and had caused loss. On this basis the complaint is filed. Though, the complaint mentions many other allegations, the basic allegations are that the applicant had used complainant company's money for their rice mill and had misappropriated that money.
3 of 7
V.B.Gokhale
02-aba-203-19 with 211-19.odt
complainant company as he was merely on the board of directors, but had no liabilities or responsibilities in respect of the complainant company. He submitted that the applicant Sangita is a housewife and she was taken on the Board of Directors of the company, however, she had no part to play in decision making process. He emphasized that there was no written document showing exact responsibilities of the applicants in the Proprietorship firm Bahubali Rice Mills and complainant company. Learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that Bahubali Rice Mills was supposed to purchase machinery for processing the paddy and sale finished goods and after receiving sale proceeds was supposed to give money to the complainant company. This was not done. Instead, false accounts were submitted and in many cases accounts were not submitted at all. He further submitted that though money was taken for purchase of machinery, machineries were not purchased in the name of the complainant company.
4 of 7
V.B.Gokhale
02-aba-203-19 with 211-19.odt
F. M. Mulla Associates working for the complainant company, however, original papers were not submitted for investigation. This complainant company itself is not co-operating with the investigation. The affidavit does not show any connection of the applicant Vijay in the entire episode. Though, it is mentioned in the affidavit that raw rice was purchased by Bahubali Rice Mills on behalf of GDK company, there is no written document produced in that behalf.
5 of 7
V.B.Gokhale
02-aba-203-19 with 211-19.odt
amount. It appears that the complaint is filed because there was some dispute between the Directors and complainant. The applicant Vijay was not even on the Board of Directors of complainant company. The applicant's son Pratik was already arrested and is released on bail. The applicant Sangita is a housewife and investigation has not revealed that she had taken any part in decision making process or had herself misappropriated any amount of complainant company. In this view of the matter, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. The investigation can go on and the applicants shall cooperate with the investigation.
ORDER
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No.321/18 registered with Juna Rajwada Police Station, the applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand each Only) with one or two
6 of 7
V.B.Gokhale
02-aba-203-19 with 211-19.odt
sureties each in the like amount.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
7 of 7
V.B.Gokhale
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicants alleged of misappropriating company funds.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to justify custodial interrogation of the applicants at this stage.
Vijay Manik Desai
Sangita @ Vijaya Vijay Desai
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
