Allowed

Vishal Vinay Tamotiya v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Dec 2023BA/2527/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court allowed bail application for IT Head accused in cheque and forgery case. Court accepted parity ground with Finance Head co-accused and noted principal offender arrest pending due to health, imposing strict bail conditions including non-molestation and property reporting.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing Rs. 1,00,000 bond with one or two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions including non-tampering, property reporting, and appearance as summoned.

Vishal Vinay Tamotiya Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2527 OF 2022

¶4

Vishal Vinay Tamotiya ...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶7

Mr. Ashok Mundargi, senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Yende, Mr.
Harshwardhan Akolkar and Ms Surbhi Agarwal for the Applicant.
Ms P.N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶8

Mr. Gaurav Rana with Mr. Rakesh Umarani, Mr. Amey Karmudi and Mr.
Rushikesh Kale for the Intervenor.

¶9

Ms Swapna Gore, DCP, Crime Branch, Pimpri-Chinchwad, present.
Mr. Madhukar Sawant, Sr. PI, Pimpri-Chinchwad Police Station and Mr.
Sameer Dabhale, PSI, present.

¶10

 CORAM: G.A. SANAP, J.

¶11

DATED: 22nd DECEMBER, 2023.

¶12

P. C. :-

¶13

1. Learned APP has placed on record the letter dated

¶14

22/12/2023 received from Ms Swapna Gore, DCP, Crime Branch,
Pimpri-Chinchwad. Ms Swapna Gore is personally present in the Court
with the Investigating Officer. She states that within the next 15 days

¶15

accused Sunil Kumar Garg would be arrested in this crime.

¶16

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2023.12.22 17:36:22 +0530

¶17

2. It is accordingly directed that all the reasonable steps be

¶18

taken to arrest the accused No.1. Letter dated 22/12/2023 is marked

Megha

1/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

as Exhibit-’A’ for identification.

¶23

3.The Applicant, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime
No.380 of 2022 registered with Chakan Police Station, Distrtict-Pune,
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468
and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has made this
application for bail.

¶24

4.I have heard Mr. Ashok Mundargi, learned senior counsel
for the Applicant-accused No.1, Ms P.N. Dabholkar, learned APP for the
Respondent -State and Mr. Gaurav Rana, learned counsel for the
Intervenor. Perused the record and proceedings.

¶25

5.Learned senior Advocate submitted that the accused-Nikhil
Agarwal, attributed with more serious role being Finance Head of the
Company, has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order
dated 23/05/2023 and as such on the ground of parity accused No.1 is
entitled to get bail. The learned senior Advocate pointed out that the
misappropriated amount has been traced to the bank accounts of the
accused -Sunil Kumar Garg and Nikhil Agarwal and their family
members. The learned senior Advocate submitted that during the

Megha

2/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

course of the investigation ample material has been collected but there
is no iota of evidence to show that a single pai of the misappropriated
amount was traced to the account of the Applicant-accused No.1. The
learned senior Advocate submitted that the accused No.1 at the
relevant time was head of the IT Department. Learned senior
Advocate submitted that computerised administrative systemp, SAP
was used for commission of the crime, which was directly as per the
case of the prosecution, under control of accused No.1. Learned senior
Advocate pointed out that he was arrested in this crime on
14/03/2022 and since then he has been languishing in jail. Learned
senior Advocate pointed out that the Investigating Officer has not so
far arrested the main accused -Sunil Kumar Garg without assigning any
satisfactory reason. It is submitted that on account of failure of the
police to arrest accused-Sunil Kumar Garg, who is the kingpin in the
crime, accused No.1 cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period.
The learned senior Advocate submitted that considering the material
compiled in the charge-sheet, his further incarceration may amount to
pre-trial conviction. The learned senior Advocate pointed out that in
the absence of the arrest of the co-accused Sunil Kumar Garg, the
possibility of completion of trial in near future is very bleak. The
learned senior Advocate submitted that the Applicant is ready to abide

Megha

3/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

¶34

6.The learned APP submitted that SAP system, which was
used for the purpose of preparation of bogus purchase orders, invoice
payment receipts, record of the keys, etc. was used for commission of
the crime and more particularly for preparing the false record. The
learned APP submitted that without involvement of the accused No.1,
it was not possible to use this SAP system for the purpose of preparing
false and fabricating documents. Learned APP submitted that the
economic offence committed is very serious. Learned APP submitted
that the Company was duped by the accused and the amount of
misappropriation is Rs.139 crores. The learned APP submitted that
therefore, the accused No.1 is not entitled to get bail.

¶35

7.Learned Advocate appearing for the Intervenor (Informant)
submitted that bail of one accused Sandip Wani has been rejected by
the Trial Court. Learned Advocate for the Informant submitted that the
bail order granted in favour of Nikhil Agarwal has been challenged by
the Informant. The learned Advocate for the Informant submitted that
no case has been made out for bail on the ground of parity. Learned
Advocate further pointed out that the Company has filed civil suits

Megha

4/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

against Nikhil Agarwal and Sunil Kumar Garg for recovery of money.
Learned Advocate submitted that considering the amount of
misappropriation i.e. 139 crores, the indulgence of the nature sought
for by the accused No.1 cannot be granted in his favour. The learned
Advocate submitted that the very purpose of filing of the charge-sheet
with such voluminous documentary evidence would be frustrated, if he
is enlarged on bail.

¶40

8.First and foremost, I will deal with the submissions made
touching the ground of parity. It is undisputed that the accused No.1
was the IT Head. The computerised administration system i.e. SAP
was under the direct control of accused No.1. It is the case of the
prosecution that the amount of misappropriation involved in the crime
was traced to the accounts of the co-accused Sunil Kumar Garg and his
family members as well as to the bank accounts of Nikhil Agarwal and
his family members. The accused-Nikhil Agarwal has been granted
bail by the Trial Court. The order of bail is part of the record. It is
seen that compared to the role of the accused No.1, role of Nikhil
Agarwal is more serious. It is undisputed that the misappropriated
amount was neither traced to the bank accounts of the accused No.1 or
his family members as well as no amount was recovered during the

Megha

5/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

course of the investigation. A perusal of the record would indicate that
Sunil Kumar Garg was the Managing Director of the Company. Sandip
Wani was the General Manager of the Company. The accused-Nikhil
Agarwal was the Finance Head of the Company. A perusal of the FIR
would show that the accused No.1 -Applicant was roped in by the
remaining co-accused by utilising the SAP system for creation of the
false documents. The plan and conspiracy was hatched, as can be seen
from the FIR, by these three accused. It is further pertinent to note
that accused No.1 is the distant relative of Sunil Kumar Garg, who was
the Managing Director of the Company. In the facts and circumstances
therefore, the role played by Nikhil Agarwal by applying any standard
would have to be termed as more serious than the role played by the
Applicant. In my view therefore, the ground of parity with Nikhil
Agarwal is available to the accused No.1-Applicant. In my view he is
therefore entitled to place this ground in service to justify his prayer
for bail.

¶45

9.In this case the DCP, Crime Branch, Pimpri-Chichwad, was
summoned to apprise the Court about the steps taken to arrest
accused-Sunil Kumar Garg. The DCP has placed on record the letter,
which is marked as Exhibit -A. The DCP, Crime Branch, Pimpri-

Megha

6/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

Chinchwad has made a statement across the Bar that within the next
15 days accused-Sunil Kumar Garg would be arrested. She has stated
that he had not left India. She has further pointed out that he is
suffering from kidney ailment and he is on dialysis. The DCP has
assured this Court that within the next 15 days he will be arrested.

¶50

10.The FIR was registered on 14/03/2022. The Applicant-
accused No.1 was arrested on the very same day i.e. 14/03/2022. The
investigation as far as the Applicant is concerned, is complete in all
respect. His detention as per the case of the prosecution is not
warranted for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation.
The offences in this case are triable by the Magistrate. The accused
No.1-Applicant cannot be held responsible for not effecting the arrest
of accused-Sunil Kumar Garg. In this case since the accused Sunil
Kumar Garg is the principal offender, without his arrest, it would not
be possible to commence the trial. In my view considering the nature
of allegations against the accused No.1 and the evidence compiled in
the charge-sheet he cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. It
is true that the crime is serious. The amount of misappropriation is
139 crores. However, the material collected during the course of
investigation has not revealed the trace of misappropriated amount to

Megha

7/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

the bank accounts of the Applicant -accused No.1 or his family
members. In the facts and circumstances, in my view the Applicant has
made out a case to enlarge him on bail. The apprehension put-forth by
the learned APP can be taken care of by imposing appropriate
conditions. Hence, following order:-

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The application is allowed;

¶57

(ii) The Applicant-Vishal Vinay Tamotiya be

¶58

released on bail in Crime No.380 of 2022

¶59

registered with Chakan Police Station,

¶60

Distrtict-Pune, for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468 and

¶61

471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

¶62

on his furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of

¶63

Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two solvent
sureties in the like amount;

¶64

(iii) The Applicant shall not leave the State of
Maharashtra without prior permission of the
learned Trial Court.

¶65

(iv) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly

¶66

tamper with the prosecution evidence;

Megha

8/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

(v)The Applicant shall not pressurise, threaten

¶71

or induce the prosecution witnesses directly
or indirectly.

¶72

(vi)The Applicant shall intimate to the learned

¶73

Trial Court about the future transaction
regarding movable and immovable property
which is more than Rs.1,00,000/- with
necessary details and documents.

¶74

(vii) The Applicant shall produce his local and

¶75

permanent address with its authenticate
proofs.

¶76

(viii) The Applicant shall attend Chakan Police

¶77

Station as and when summoned by the
Investigating Officer for the purpose of
investigation.

¶78

11.It is made clear that observations made in this order are for

¶79

the limited purpose of deciding the bail application. The learned Trial
Judge shall not get influenced by the same in any manner while
deciding the case.

Megha

9/10

12_ba_2527_2022.odt

12.The application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶84

(G.A. SANAP, J.)

¶85

Megha

¶86

10/10

Vishal Vinay Tamotiya v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Vinay Tamotiya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shoaib Ayub Sikrawa Vs Anti Narcotics Cell and Anr.

Pandarinath Tukaram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manoj Sitam Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Rambhalak Choube @ Choubey Vs State of Maharashtra

Satish Nathalal Goghari Vs State of Maharashtra

Javed Abdul Karim Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra