Allowed

Sanjay Gangadhar Manchare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jul 2023ABA/110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail application for applicant accused of financial fraud and misappropriation. Court held no necessity for custodial interrogation as forensic audit completed charge-sheet and applicant cooperated.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of interim order; custody not necessary.

What the court decided

Sanjay Gangadhar Manchare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

aba110.23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2023

¶4

Sanjay s/o Gangadhar Manchare

¶5

Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. A. D. Ostwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17^th JULY, 2023.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 6293/2020 registered with Tophakhana Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 409, 417, 418, 149, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477, 477A, 120B, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999.

¶13

Applicant is one of the Directors of Raosaheb Patwardhan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Ahmednagar. The allegation against the applicant and the other Directors and

¶14

¶15

aba110.23.odt

¶16

employees of the said society is that they induced the investors to invest amount in the society and instead of returning the amount with interest, the said amount was mis-appropriated.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the chargesheet has already been fled in the present case and that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

¶18

Learned APP opposed the said submission by stating that only because some of the accused were arrested, charge-sheet came to be fled to their extent.

¶19

A query was made to the learned APP as to what is the justifcation for custodial interrogation of the present applicant more particularly when the liberty of the applicant was protected by order dated 27^th February, 2023, and since then he is attending the police station. Learned APP on the basis of the report submitted by the Investigating Offcer, though has opposed grant of bail, however, he was unable to point out the purpose for which further custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the

¶20

aba110.23.odt

¶21

¶22

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , wherein in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment, it is observed thus :-

¶23

In the High Court of Delhi v. CBI, the Delhi High Court dealt with an argument similar to the contention of the respondent that Section 170 CrPC prevents the trial court from taking a charge-sheet on record unless the accused is taken into custody. The relevant extracts are as under : (SCC OnLine Del paras 15-16 & 19-20)

¶24

“15. Word “custody” appearing in this section does not contemplate either police or judicial custody. It merely connotes the presentation of accused by the investigating offcer before the Court at the time of fling of the charge-sheet whereafter the role of the Court starts. Had it not been so the investigating offcer would not have been vested with powers to release a person on bail in a bailable offence after fnding that there was suffcient evidence to put the accused on trial and it would have been obligatory upon him to produce such an accused in custody before the Magistrate for being released on bail by the Court.

¶25

In case the police/investigating offcer thinks it unnecessary to present the accused in custody for the reason that the accused would neither abscond

¶26

aba110.23.odt

¶27

nor would disobey the summons as he has been cooperating in investigation and investigation can be completed without arresting him, the IO is not obliged to produce such an accused in custody.

¶28

It appears that the learned Special Judge was labouring under a misconception that in every nonbailable and cognizable offence the police is required to invariably arrest a person, even if it is not essential for the purpose of investigation.

¶29

Rather the law is otherwise. In normal and ordinary course the police should always avoid arresting a person and sending him to jail, if it is possible for the police to complete the investigation without his arrest and if every kind of cooperation is provided by the accused to the investigating offcer in completing the investigation. It is only in cases of utmost necessity, where the investigation cannot be completed without arresting the person, for instance, a person may be required for recovery of incriminating articles or weapon of offence or for eliciting some information or clue as to his accomplices or any circumstantial evidence, that his arrest may be necessary. Such an arrest may also be necessary if the investigating offcer concerned or offcer in charge of the police station thinks that presence of the accused will be diffcult to procure

¶30

¶31

aba110.23.odt

¶32

because of grave and serious nature of crime as the possibility of his absconding or disobeying the process or feeing from justice cannot be ruled out.

¶33

In the instant case, offence has been registered on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the basis of the charge-sheet is the forensic audit. There is no dispute about the fact that audit is completed before fling of the charge-sheet. In such circumstances, chargesheet is not fled against the present applicant only for the reason that he was not arrested. Except for this, no other justifcation can be given by the Investigating Agency for not fling charge-sheet against the present applicant. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, by way of punishment before trial he cannot be kept behind the bars. It is also pertinent to note that the Chairman and other directors of the company are enlarged on regular bail. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant has mis-used the liberty. Hence, application is allowed in terms of the interim order.

¶34

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶35

dyb

Sanjay Gangadhar Manchare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sanjay Gangadhar Manchare 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angad Vilas Agale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashok Kondiba Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Salim Shaikh Chiragoddin Shaikh @ Salim Topi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhujang Uttam Kawale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Kashinath Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dattatray Nandu Bedake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another