Suraj S/O Kashinath Dhandravye Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Nandura Dist. Buldhana

...............................................................………………........................................………………………................................……………
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order
and Registrar's orders

¶13

BA No.78/2025

¶14

Shri R.M.Daga, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri Anant Ghongre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the NA/State. Shri R.K.Thakkar, Counsel for the complainant.

¶15

BA No.1245/2024

¶16

Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel & Shri Mohan Agrawal & Ms.Garima Jain, Advocates for the Applicant. Shri Anant Ghongre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the NA/State.

¶17

Shri R.K.Thakkar, Counsel for the complainant.

¶18

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. CLOSED ON : 28/03/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 03/04/2025

¶19

1. These applications are filed by applicants in

¶20

connection with Crime No.236/2024 registered with the

¶21

non-applicant/police station for offences punishable under

¶22

.....2/-

¶23

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶24

¶25

Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477(1), 201,
120-B of the IPC and under Sections 43(B), 65, 66(B),
66(C), and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶26

The applicants came to be arrested on 10.4.2024 and 15.5.2024 respectively.

¶27

The allegations are on the basis of the report lodged by Rajendraprasad Ramkewal Pandey, the CEO of Nandura Urban Cooperative Bank that co-accused Pratik Sharma, serving as Technical Staff in the said bank, by hatching conspiracy with the present applicants and other co-accused, took false entries and transferred amounts in various bank accounts including accounts of their friends, relatives, and in his own account in all 34 in numbers. The applicant in Criminal Application No.78/2025, who is Branch Manger, forged signatures of bank account holders and withdrew the amounts and co-accused Pratik Sharma used the said amounts in cricket betting. The total stake of the amounts is Rs.5,44,65,000/-.

¶28

.....3/-

¶29

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶30

¶31

Heard learned counsel appearing for respective

¶32

parties.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for applicants submitted that as far as applicants are concerned, merely because they are employees, they are implicated in the alleged offence. They are not beneficiaries. On the contrary, bank accounts of their relatives, especially wife and brother of applicant Suraj Dhandravya, were misused by the co-accused as well as bank account of brother of applicant Mohan Madhukar Ghan is also misused for transfer of the said amount. Now, investigation is already completed and chargesheet is already filed. Further incarceration of applicants is not required. In support of their contentions, they placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of P.Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2019)9 SCC 24 ; Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012)1 SCC 40 , and Manish Sisodiya vs.

¶34

.....4/-

¶35

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶36

¶37

Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1920.

¶38

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed applications and submitted that as far as applicants are concerned, their involvement in the crime is direct involvement. During investigation, it revealed that they were part of conspiracy. The co-accused with the aid of applicants transferred amounts in accounts of their brothers and wives. Applicant Suraj, was Branch Manager at the relevant time who forged signatures of account holders and withdrew amounts. The Forensic Audit Report, various statements of witnesses show involvement of applicants in the alleged offence. Thus, considering their involvement in economic offence, both applications deserve to be rejected.

¶39

After hearing both sides and perusing of investigation papers, it reveals that applicant Suraj was

¶40

.....5/-

¶41

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶42

¶43

Incharge Branch Manager. Whereas, applicant Mohan was
also serving in the said bank and by hatching conspiracy
with the co-accused and in connivance with each other,
they used accounts of various customers for fraudulent
transfers including account numbers of their relatives. The
statements of witnesses also disclose that applicants have
communicated to various customers informing them that
some amounts would be transferred to their accounts and
they should withdraw the same and hand over to them. For
the said transactions, they have paid some amounts to the
said bank customers. Thus, manner in which fraudulent
transfers are done, is not only ascertained in the Forensic
Audit Report but also it revealed from statements of
witnesses and account statements of the said customers.
Thus, involvement of applicants revealed in the present
crime.

¶44

In the decision, upon which learned counsel appearing for respective applicants relied upon, in the case

¶45

.....6/-

¶46

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶47

¶48

of P.Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcementsupra,
application was filed for anticipatory bail and it is held that
economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interest of the public/State and other similar
considerations and dismissed the appeal of the applicant

¶49

therein.

¶50

In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of supra, facts considered were that the accused are charged with economic offences and their further custody is

¶51

not required.

¶52

.....7/-

¶53

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶54

¶55

In the case of Manish Sisodiya vs. Central Bureau of Investigation supra,bail was granted especially on the ground that despite of direction, the trial was not progressed.

¶56

In the present case, as observed earlier, the involvement of applicants is in economic offence. The public money is misappropriated and siphoned by transferring to other bank accounts.

¶57

It is well settled position of law that jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised having regard to facts and circumstances of case. The factors to be taken into consideration are; 1) the nature of accusations and severity of punishment; 2) reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses; 3) reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused, and 4) character, behaviour and standard of accused. Each case has to be considered on its

¶58

own merits.

¶59

In the present case, considering the nature of the

¶60

.....8/-

¶61

¶62

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶63

crime, huge amounts are involved.

¶64

The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with offence, involving conspiracy to commit economic offences of huge magnitude, in the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy

¶65

vs. CBI, reported in (2013)7, SCC 439, laid down following
parameters:

¶66

“i) economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in
the matter of bail. The economic offence having
deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss
of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of
the country, and

¶67

ii) while granting bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused, reasonable

¶68

.....9/-

¶69

¶70

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶71

possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interest of the public/State and other similar
considerations.

¶72

Also, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of

¶73

State of Gujarat vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal, reported in

¶74

(1987)2 SCC 364, held as under:

¶75

“5. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of
the State are not brought to book. A murder
may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate
design with an eye on personal profit regardless
of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can
be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the
trust and faith of the community in the system
to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which
view white collar crimes with a permissive eye
unmindful of the damage done to the national

¶76

.....10/-

¶77

387 ba78.25 & ba1245.24

¶78

¶79

economy and national interest.....”

¶80

Considering the role of applicants, having involved in economic offence wherein public money is involved and the investigation revealing manner in which the offence is committed and bank customers were duped and public money is at stake, the role of applicants is clearly exposed.

¶81

In the background of accusations and its gravity, applicants are not entitled for being released on bail and, therefore, applications deserve to be rejected and accordingly the same are rejected .

¶82

Applications stand disposed of.

¶83

 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶84

!! BrWankhede !!

¶85

...../-

Suraj S/O Kashinath Dhandravye v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Nandura Dist. Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj S/O Kashinath Dhandravye v. State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Nandura Dist. Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas @ Pappu S/O Raju Dagor Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Ambazari Dist. Nagpur

Smt. Mamta Wd/O Vijay Chauhan Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., Mankapur,Nagpur

Rahul S/O Madhukar Manohar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Mankapur, Nagpur

Parmeshwar Ramdas Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Pimpalgaon Raja City Police Station, Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana

Manish S/O Sagar Shendre Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps Yavatmal City, Dist. Yavatmal

Vishal S/O Narayan Pongade Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Police Station Officer, P.S. Umarkhed, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal