Partly allowed

Raghunath Ashok Rane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Sept 2021BA/296/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC 1973 for offences under IPC, the High Court of Bombay, Coimbatore Benches (Bombay HC), at Borivali, granted bail to an accused who was not a beneficiary of misappropriated funds. The court distinguished his case from a co-accused who was a beneficiary and released him on bail with security and an undertaking not to tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon filing of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/ along with one or more sureties in like amount and without tampering with prosecution witnesses.

Raghunath Ashok Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed IRESHSIDDHARAM by IRESHSIDDHARAMMASHAL MASHAL Date: 2021.09.29 17:58:45 +0530

¶2

27.296.21 BA.doc

¶3

ISM

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 2021

¶7

RAGHUNATH ASHOK RANE ….APPLICANT

¶8

V/s.

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶10

…..RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr. Arun K. Rajput a/w Rohan Bansal i/b M/s. Lex Rex Jurist advocate for the applicant

¶12

Ms. A. A. Takalkar APP for the State

¶13

Mr. Atul Balaso Mali, API, Borivali Police Station

¶14

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶15

DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2021.

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1] Applicant is seeking bail in C.R. No. 926 of 2020 registered with

¶18

Borivali Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

2] Prosecution case is, applicant claimed to be employee of M/s.

¶20

Noble Hub Mitrubishi, approached the complainant who was working with Canara Bank, Borivali West, Mumbai in the capacity of Manager.

¶21

1/5

¶22

27.296.21 BA.doc

¶23

After having introduced himself as sales offcer, one Ganesh Ubhare, co-accused is shown to be Chief operating offcer of the said frm. Applicant stated to complainant that a four-wheeler Mitsubishi Pajero was to be purchased for Mr. Avidh Gharat and loan is required for that purpose. After completing formalities, loan was disbursed for purchase of the car. Instead of purchasing the said vehicle, it is claimed that amount was diverted for individual use. As such the offence.

¶24

3] In the aforesaid background, offence came to be registered against the applicant as it is further claimed that accused-applicant facilitated similar fnancial assistance from the complainant for other 3 to 4 accused.

¶25

4] Counsel for the applicant while trying to make out a case for grant of bail would urge that custodial interrogation of the applicant has not resulted in recovery of the amount involved in the crime as the applicant is not the benefciary of the same.

¶26

2/5

¶27

27.296.21 BA.doc

¶28

5] He would further claim that co-accused Avidh Gharat,

¶29

benefciary of the amount in crime is already ordered to be released on bail in C.R. No. 1366/2021.

¶30

6] Learned APP while opposing the prayer would urge that even if the applicant is charge-sheeted, there is suffcient material on record to infer his prima facie involvement. According to her, during the search, certain incriminating material recovered from the custody of the applicant such as chequebooks of various banks which were operated in the name of various companies and such companies were formed and operated only for namesake to be used in commission of crime. According to her, behind formation of such companies, the only object of the applicant was to commit the fnancial offence.

¶31

7] Considered submissions.

¶32

8] From the record it can be inferred that the amount involved in

¶33

the crime was diverted to the account of co-accused Ganesh Ubhare

¶34

3/5

¶35

27.296.21 BA.doc

¶36

and Sai Consultancy Services. From accounts of these persons, amount had gone to the account of private individual like the Avidh Gharat who is ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 21/06/2021.

¶37

9] From the record, it can be inferred that there are no criminal antecedents and the amount received in the crime has not gone to the account of the applicant, as such, applicant cannot be termed to be benefciary from the amount involved in the crime.

¶38

10] Even if in the order dated 21/06/2021 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 1366/2021, it is mentioned that applicant therein is willing to part with car, however, it is clarifed by the learned APP that amount of loan disbursed by the bank was never used for purchase of the vehicle. That being so, claim of the coaccused that he is willing to part with the custody of the vehicle is not a factually correct statement.

¶39

4/5

¶40

27.296.21 BA.doc

¶41

11] As such, in my opinion, case of the applicant is better placed than the case of the co-accused Avidh Gharat. That being so, applicant is ordered to be released on bail on following conditions:

¶42

(i) Applicant be released on bail in C.R. No. 926 of 2020 registered with Borivali Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code upon furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶43

(ii) Applicant shall not infuence the prosecution witnesses in any manner or tamper with the evidence.

¶44

12] Application stands disposed of.

¶45

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶46

5/5

Raghunath Ashok Rane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Ashok Rane 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Incharge T.P. Hub, Nagpur Vs Rupesh S/O Sukhdeo Modak and Others

Smt. Pooja W/O Prejkumar Chavan Vs Mr. Prejkumar S/O Shankar Chavan

Reliance General Insu. Co. Ltd., Akola Branch, Thr. Manager Legal, Nagpur Divisional Office, Nagpur Vs Vimal W/O Bibhisun Jadhav and Others

Shahid @ Chingu Iqbal Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Eknath Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saud Hashim Pangarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra