Vasant Dattatraya Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

3] This Court, by order dated 07.02.2025, has granted interim protection in favour of the applicants for the submissions and reasons stated in para nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as noted below :

¶46

4]The case against the applicants is that
between the period of 01.09.2023 to 26.09.2023,
the complainant has paid various amounts for
procuring funds from the companies (corporate
socialresponsibilitiesfunds)towards
constructions of agricultural farm lakes to be
constructed within the State of Maharashtra. It
is stated that the informant has paid various
amounts to the V. D. Patil and Suryasingh
Chavan. It is stated that the informant has
paid amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to Vasant
Dattatray Patil in cash. It is also stated that
the informant paid Rs.20,00,000/- through
R.T.G.S. to one Mr.Suryasingh Chavan and Gold
River Infra Limited.

¶47

5] Even after paying the money, the
contracts were not issued to the informant and
as such complaint was made to the economic
offences wing by the informant, in pursuance of
which enquiry was conducted by the economic
offences wing and ultimately the same was
closed by holding that there was case made out
only against Suryasingh Chavan and Gold River
Infra Company and directed the informant to
lodge the report accordingly. Thereafter, on
05.06.2024,the complainant filed application
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 before the Magistrate. Based on
the complaint filed by the complainant, the
Magistrate has directed to register the FIR. In
pursuance of the direction to register the FIR,

¶48

4

¶49

132.25ABA+

¶50

the present bail applications are filed by the
applicants for anticipatory bail apprehending
arrest.

¶51

6] Prima-facie, even if I consider the case
at its face value, it appears from the
complaint that the amount paid is for procuring
contract from private companies and the
applicants’servicesareutilisedas
agents/liaison officers in view of their
contacts with private companies. Amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- by cash is paid by the
informant, but there is no prima-facie evidence
to substantiate the same. The economic offences
wing has conducted an enquiry and no evidence
was found by the with economic offences wing to
make out aforesaid offences against the
applicants except the statement of the
informant that he has paid Rs.20,00,000/- in
cash to the applicant-Mr.Vasant Dattatray Patil
for the sanction of funds under the scheme of
Corporate Social Responsibility. The informant
is a builder and a man with business acumen. It
is not expected of the informant to pay by cash
huge amount without receipt of the same or an
agreement duly executed for the same. In
absence of any prima-facie evidence showing
that payment has been made by the informant to
the applicants, this Court holds that interim
protection can be granted to the applicants,
more particularly, in view of the fact that
earlier also enquiry was conducted by the
economic offences wing and no material has been
found against the applicants.

¶52

7] Considering both these aspects, interim
protection is granted to the applicant-Vasant
Dattatray Patil. As regards the other
applicants are concerned, no case is made out
by the informant that amounts are paid to them.

¶53

8] The learned counsel appearing for the
original informant submits that there is
evidence on record that Suhas Bhatt and Pankaj
Nimade had travelled with the informant to
various places and Pankaj Nimade has also
returned certain amount to the informant. I
have already observed above the case is based

¶54

5

¶55

132.25ABA+

¶56

oncashtransactionandpreliminary
investigation is also carried out by EOW.
Considering the same all the applicants are
granted interim protection.

¶57

4] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that in pursuance of the interim order, this Court has directed the applicants to remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the investigating officer. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the interim order, the applicants have cooperated with the investigation.

¶58

5] The learned counsel for the assist to P.P. submits that applicant – Vasant Dattatraya Patil was given certain amounts for sanction of the funds under the scheme of Corporate Social Responsibility, so also, other accused had travelled with the informant to various places, as such, involvement of the applicants in the alleged crime are seen. He further submits that the informant paid Rs.20 lakh through R.T.G.S. to other persons, who are not before this Court.

¶59

6] By order dated 07.02.2025, it is noticed that there is no evidence to show that the informant had paid Rs.20 lakhs by cash, so also, the enquiry was also conducted by the economic offences wing and no material has been found against the applicants. There is no recovery to be made at the instance of the applicants in the alleged

¶60

6

¶61

132.25ABA+

¶62

crime. In view of the same, the interim protection granted by order dated 07.02.2025 stands confirmed, in the following terms :

¶63

i] The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶64

ii] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

¶65

iii] The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

¶66

7] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶67

8] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶68

7

¶69

132.25ABA+

¶70

9] The applications stand disposed of.

¶71

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶72

DDC

Vasant Dattatraya Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Dattatraya Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanand Prabhakarappa Khurpe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Azim Syed Ahmed Syed and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Dastagir S/O Mohammood Yaqub Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hamid Ayyubkha Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Rajendra Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nanasaheb Vikram Bhad vs Gov. of India Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (Peso) and Others