Appealed against the conviction. Court held that transactions were verified and business-related, no specific role under Atrocities Act established, and fraud to be proved at trial. Bail allowed with security and conditions.
Appellant released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.50,000/- with sureties, subject to movement conditions.
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.
1/6 31 APEAL-864-23.doc
MANDIRAMILINDSALGAONKAR Digitally signed byMANDIRA MILINDSALGAONKARDate: 2023.09.2116:50:02 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.864 OF 2023
Deep Chhaganlal Bhanushali
.. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
.. Respondents
Mr.Nilesh Pandey with Mr.Madhav Thorat and Mr.Sameer V. for the Appellant.
Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
Mr.Sushil M. Shukla with Ms.Janki J. Sampat for the Respondent No.2.
Mr.Sunil Kurade, ACP Dombivali Division, present.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2023
P.C:-
Certain documents were also made available to the Investigating Offcer in the interregnum, by the Appellant.
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/6 31 APEAL-864-23.doc
make a categorical statement that a sum of Rs.57,17,337/- is received in the account, as against the medicine supplied by Serenity Swasthyam Ayurveda in favour of Deep Ayurveda, belonging to the Applicant. The Investigating Offcer in his report addressed to the learned A.P.P. and which is placed before the Court for perusal, categorically refer to the verifcation undertaken by him, which confrm that out of the total entries to the tune of Rs.73,86,501/-, the purchase orders worth Rs.57,17,337/- are refective of the fact that there was dealing between the two entities. He also make a reference to the entries from Deep Ayurveda to the account of the main Accused Sunil Singh in the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- from 11/10/2021 to 18/10/2021. In any case, these are the reverse entries and the Appellant/Accused is not expected to offer an explanation for the same, as what was inquired from the Investigating Offcer is, whether any amount, which has been paid by the Complainant/Respondent No.2 to the main Accused Sunil Singh in his account, which is alleged to have been siphoned off, has been diverted in the account of the other coaccused, which include the present Appellant/Accused No.2 (being shown as arrested accused).
As far as the material against the present Appellant is concerned, in the complaint lodged by the Complainant, which resulted in registration of the subject C.R. in Manpada Police Station, there is a passing reference made by the Complainant to the present Appellant, when he state that he was introduced
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/6 31 APEAL-864-23.doc
to him, but in the entire F.I.R., except this introduction is in the month of June 2020 by Dr.Sunilkumar Singh, when the Complainant was taken to his offce, nothing more is attributed. It is the version of the Complainant that he was introduced to his parents, his brother Anil Singh and his associates, Foram Bhanushal and Deep Bhanushali i.e. the present Appellant. He was also informed by the main accused Sunil Singh that his mother Shanti Singh was Director, whereas his father was Accountant and his brother was the Chief Financial Adviser. However, no specifc role is attributed to Deep Bhanushali and Foram Bhanushali, who are the siblings.
The gamut of accusations are against the main accused Sunil Singh, who is alleged to have duped the Complainant for the sum of Rs.85,50,000/- on the ground that he would get good returns, upon the money being invested.
In the supplementary statement of the Informant/Respondent No.2 recorded on 05/12/2022, almost three months after the complaint was lodged, there is once again a reference to the present Appellant, while referring to an incident dated 04/08/2022 when the accusation is, on that date, Anil Singh, one of the co-accused, abused him in the name of caste and even the present Appellant-Deep Bhanushali was also present and he also passed offending comments.
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/6 31 APEAL-864-23.doc
statement and considering it to be an after thought and by recording that the incident dated 04/08/2022 found mention in the main complaint, but this particular accusation of hurling casteist abuses was conspicuously absent and by recording that, prima facie the accusation coming by way of a supplementary statement, smacks of an afterthought and malafde, Anil Kumar Singh was held entitled for being released on bail, in the event of his arrest.
I see no reason, why the same analogy shall not apply to the present Appellant as regards the accusations under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “The Atrocities Act” ) are concerned.
“In such eventualities in view of nature of leveled allegations against applicant seriousness gravity of crime and punishment prescribed coupled with alleged role attributed by applicant by which prima facie does not inclined any seriously considerable cognizable reason cause ground for his futher custodial detention. Moreover, in view of nature of objection raised by the intervenors and respondent and requirement of presence of applicant while trial, I felt by saddling stringent conditions would appropriate to have the liberty to him.”
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/6 31 APEAL-864-23.doc
The aforesaid reasoning equally apply to the present C.R., as the prosecution is unable to justify further detention of the Appellant, as prima facie, no offence under the Atrocities Act is made out against him and as far as Sections 406 and 420 are concerned, since it is now established that a chunk of the amount, which has come into the account of the present Appellant from the main accused, it is towards business transactions and the Investigating Offcer has verifed the purchase orders and has satisfed himself that out of the total entries to the tune of Rs.73,86,501/-, a sum Rs.57,17,337/stands accounted, as against the purchase orders.
The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would vehemently submit that there is no further transaction parallel to the said purchase orders and according to him, the purchase orders are computer generated. However, since the Investigating Offcer is satisfed that the purchase orders are accounted for a specifed amount, and in any case, fraud by Accused No.1 and its connect with the Appellant will have to be established at the time of trial, when all the Accused face the charge under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, further incarceration of the Appellant become unnecessary. He, therefore, deserve his release on bail. Hence, the following order.
: ORDER :
(a) Appeal is allowed.
(b) Appellant -Deep Chhaganlal Bhanushali shall be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-749 of 2022 registered with Manpada Police Station on furnishing
M.M.Salgaonkar
6/6 31 APEAL-864-23.doc
P.R. Bond to the extent of Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
(c) The Appellant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station on frst Monday of every trimester between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon.
(d) The Appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Offcer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(e) On being released on bail, the Appellant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Offcer and shall keep him updated, in the event of any change therein.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant deserves release on bail given the verified transactions and the prima facie inapplicability of the Atrocities Act.
Whether the supplementary allegations against the appellant are valid grounds for continued incarceration.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deep Chhaganlal Bhanushali
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
