Chhtrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) v. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Karmad, Tq. & Dist. Chhtrapati Sa
Facts
165.25ABA+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2025 Krushna Pundlik Sangle Age 31 Years, Occ : Labour, R/o. Vanjarwadi, Post Asegaon, Tq. & Dist: Chhtrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad). .. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Karmad, Tq. & Dist. Chhtrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad). .. RESPONDENT …Mr.I.K.Wagh, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.V.S.Chaudhari & Mr.B.B.Bhise, APPs for therespondent-StateMr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for Assist to P.P. …WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN.NO.2122 OF 2024 1]Jinna Venkata Ramana Reddy Age: 35 years, Occ : Pvt. Service, R/o.B-20, Meadows Hill View Homes, Mitmita, Tq. & Dist. Ch.Sambhajinagar. 2]Aleti Sharath Reddy, Age : 29 years, Occ : Pvt. Service, R/o. 1-65/1, Chegyam, Post-Cheggaon, Dist. Karimnagar (Telangana). .. APPLICANTS VERSUS
Legal Reasoning
765.25ABA+6]The Complainant submits that the complainanthas received rice of Rs.82 crores against the orders placed.Thereafter, the FCI stopped supply of rice to thecomplainant and other ethanol manufacturers on account ofscarcity of rice. As such, Rs.30 crores of the complainantwere lying with the FCI towards the balance of purchaseorder. However, the FCI refunded only Rs.20.40 crores tothe complainant company and declined to refund thebalance Rs.10.15 crores to the company. It is stated thatCWC has already supplied the rice of Rs.10 crores to thecomplainant company, and thus, declined refund for thesame. 7]Inquiry was made by the complainant as theCompany had not received rice of Rs.10 crores. During thecourse of enquiry it was noticed that the CWC had outsourced supply of rice to Lakshmi Trading Agency, who hasgo downs at Maliwada and that the said company incollusion with some Officials of CWC committed fraud ofRs.10 crores by showing bogus supply of rice to thecomplainant company by preparing forged documents. Thisamounted to cheating and persons from FTC, CWC Officersand some of the Officers of FCI were found prima facieinvolved in the alleged offence. After persuasion by thecomplainant, meetings were held between the FCI Officers,Laxmi Trading Company and CWC Officers and they flatlyrefused to make payment and it was shown that rice 865.25ABA+amounting to Rs.10 crores has been supplied to theinformant. As such, the informant has registered the FIRagainst the present applicants and other co-accused. 8]It is stated that the complainant Company iscontrolled, supervised and monitored by Excise Department.As per Section 58 of the Bombay Probation Act, 1949, theExcise Officer has to supervise all the Distilleries inMaharashtra, which are manufacturing extra neutralAlcohol and Ethanol. The Excise Department alsomaintained parallel record of inventory as well asdispatches. The entry of every raw material with its stucknumbers are to be submitted to the Excise and dispatchesalso under permission from the Excise Officers. It is statedthat the Excise Department has maintained the record withtheir offices and he has endorsed the inventories. Thecompany has received 41,020 metric tone rice, which iscertified by the Excise Officer. As such, the complainant hassubmitted that the total rice of 50,300 metric tones is notreceived. 9]In pursuance of the FIR registered, theapplicant, namely, Jinna Venkata Ramana Reddy, who isaccused no.2, has filed Anticipatory Bail ApplicationNo.2122 of 2024. It is submitted by the applicant that thereis no privity of contract between the Laxmi TradingCompany and the informant. The CWC is only responsible 965.25ABA+for supply of rice and the informant is seeking refund ofbalance amount. Rs.20 crores refund is already given to theinformant. It is further submitted that only FCI can file theFIR and not the complainant as the goods of FCI aremissing. It is also submitted that CWC has filed suit againstthe Laxmi Trading Company and CWC has appointed theirone supervisory staff for dispatch. It is submitted that it ispurely a civil dispute. 10]Per contra, the learned APP submits that this isnot purely a civil dispute but a clear case of siphoning ofcomplainants goods. Although the complainants haveinitiated the proceedings for recovery, it is to be noticedthat forged documents are prepared by the applicant,namely, Jina, who is a mastermind of the scam in collusionwith the other accused and that rice is dispatched from theWarehouse of Laxmi Trading Company and it is not knownwho are the beneficiaries of the rice and where the salemoney has gone. It is submitted by the complainant that theFCI has refused to refund the amount on the basis that thegoods are supplied by the CWC through Laxmi TradingCompany to the informant as such the informant has locusto register the offence. The documents are fabricated in thename of the informant as regards receipt of delivery, assuch, the informant can file the complaint. It is submittedthat the Laxmi Trading Company has not taken any actionagainst Jina Reddy as the owners of Laxmi Trading 1065.25ABA+Company is a close relatives of Jina. The learned APPsubmits that the bank statement of Jina shows that lacs ofrupees were transferred by the applicant Aleti SharathReddy and Ganesh Deokar in his account. It is alsosubmitted that the supply of rice was stopped by FCI byletter dated 16.04.2022 and the same was communicated tothe CWC and Laxmi and Company. Still the rice was shownsupplied to the informant. The list of provided goods alongwith the details of trucks, gross weight was provided byCWC shows that there was supply of rice after 09.08.2023upto 17.08.2023. The applicants also prepared forged letterof DO 1707, which shows that CWC and Laxmi andCompany has provided rice as per gross weight and not asper net weight. The informant Company has communicatedthe list of trips, which were not received by RadicoCompany from the go-down of Laxmi and Company. Assuch, the learned APP submits that it is necessary to find outwhere the goods are supplied. It is submitted that JinaReddy and his employees Krishna Sangle, Ganesh Deokarand Aleti Reddy in collusion with each other and infurtherance of common intention without following theprocedure as per SOP loaded the goods (Rice) in the trucksand shown them released from their godown therebymanipulated the entries in the software. As such, thelearned APP submits that the anticipatory bail may not begranted in favour of the applicants. 1165.25ABA+11]Having considered the rival submissions of theparties, it reveals from the documents that the FCI hasstopped payment of Rs.10 crores to the informantCompany, on the basis of documents supplied by CWC andLaxmi Trading Company that the goods of Rs.10 crores aresupplied to the informant Company by CWC through LaxmiTrading Company. Prima facie it appears that the goods arenot received by the informant. However, the bank statementof Jina Venkata Ramanna and the applicants shows that lacsof rupees were deposited in their accounts and the samewere withdrawn immediately. Although it is contention ofthe applicants, namely, Krishna and Ganesh that theamounts were deposited by Jinna Reddy and the same wereimmediately withdrawn by him. Prima facie evidenceindicates that Jinna Reddy has siphoned all goods and themoney received from the sale of rice and thus theinvolvement of Jinna Reddy is seen in the alleged crime. 12]As regards involvement of applicant, namely,Ganesh Devkar is concerned, in whose accounts some of themoney is deposited, it is seen that the same is immediatelywithdrawn by Jinna Reddy. 13]As regards the applicant, namely, Krishna isconcerned, he is computer operator and there are entries inrespect of dispatch, therefore, involvement of the Krishna isseen. 1265.25ABA+14]Anticipatory Bail Application No.65/2025 inrespect of Krushna Pundlik Sangle and Anticipatory BailApplication No.2122 of 2024 in respect of Jinna VenkataRamana Reddy are dismissed. 15]The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofPratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana andanother reported in 2023 DGLS (SC) 715 has observed atpara nos.18 and 19 as under : 18.In Sushila Aggarwal V. State (NCT ofDelhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731 the ConstitutionBench reaffirmed that when consideringapplications for anticipatory bail, courtsshould consider factors such as the natureand gravity of the offences, the roleattributed to the applicant, and thespecific facts of the case.19.The relief of Anticipatory Bail isaimed at safeguarding individual rights.While it serves as a crucial tool to preventthe misuse of the power of arrest andprotects innocent individuals fromharassment, it also presents challenges inmaintaining a delicate balance betweenindividual rights and the interests ofjustice.The tight rope we must walk lies instriking a balance between safeguardingindividual rights and protecting publicinterest. While the right to liberty andpresumption of innocence are vital, thecourt must also consider the gravity of the 1365.25ABA+offence, the impact on society, and the needfor a fair and free investigation. Thecourt’s discretion in weighing theseinterests in the facts and circumstances ofeach individual case becomes crucial toensure a just outcome. 16]Considering the law as noted in the abovejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [PratibhaManchanda] on the grant of anticipatory bail andconsidering that Ganesh Anil Devkar and Aleti SharathReddy are prima facie not directly involved in the siphoningof goods, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail infavour of the applicants, namely, Aleti Sharath Reddy inAnticipatory Bail Application No.2122 of 2024 andapplicant, namely, Ganesh Anil Devkar in Anticipatory BailApplication No.2194 of 2024 and interim order dated28.01.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail ApplicationNo.2194/2025 stands confirmed, in the following terms : i]In the event the applicants, namely, AletiSharath Reddy in Anticipatory Bail ApplicationNo.2122 of 2024 and applicant, namely, Ganesh AnilDevkar in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2194 of2024 are arrested in connection with FIR No.294/2024, registered with Karmad Police Station, Tq.& Dist. Ch.Sambhajinagar, for the offence punishableunder Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 464, 468, 471r/w. 34 of the IPC, they shall be released on bail on 1465.25ABA+furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- each, with one ortwo sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe trial Court. ii]The applicants shall attend the concerned policestation as and when required by the InvestigatingOfficer. iii]The applicants shall not tamper with theevidence of the prosecution in any manner. Theyshall not influence the informant, witnesses and otherpersons concerned with the case. iv]The applicants shall co-operate with theinvestigation and also in the proceedings before thetrial Court. 17]In the event, the applicants violate any of theconditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to becancelled. 18]It is also clarified that the observations made inthis order are limited to the disposal of the presentanticipatory bail applications and the trial Court shallproceed further in the matter without being influenced bythe observations made hereinabove.
Arguments
265.25ABA+1]The State of Maharashtra 2]The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Chh. Sambhajinagar, S.P.Office, Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.S.S.Panale, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs.V.S.Chaudhari & Mr.B.B.Bhise, APP for the respondent-StateMr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for the Assist to P.P. …WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN.NO. 2194 OF 2024 Ganesh s/o. Anil Devkar, Age: 33 years, Occu : Service, R/o. Maliwada, Tq. & Dist.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1]The State of Maharashtra 2]The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Chh. Sambhajinagar, S.P.Office, Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. V.S.Chaudhari & Mr.B.B.Bhise, APP for the respondent-StateMr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for the Assist to P.P. …WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4979 OF 2024 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2122 OF 2024 365.25ABA+Ashok s/o. Dadasaheb Taware, Age: 52 years, Occu. Service, R/o. Vidyavihar, Behind Poddar Int. School Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1]The State of Maharashtra Through Officer Incharge Police Station Karmad Police Station, Tq. Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. 2]The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Chh. Sambhajinagar, S.P.Office, Chh. Sambhajinagar. 3]Jinna Venkata Ramana Reddy Age: 35 years, Occ : Pvt. Service, R/o.B-20, Meadows Hill View Homes, Mitmita, Tq. & Dist. Ch.Sambhajinagar. 4]Aleti Sharath Reddy, Age : 29 years, Occ : Pvt. Service, R/o. 1-65/1, Chegyam, Post-Cheggaon, Dist. Karimnagar (Telangana). .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. V.S.Chaudhari & Mr.B.B.Bhise, APP for the respondent-StateMr.S.S.Panale, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. …WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2025 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2194 OF 2024 Ashok s/o. Dadasaheb Taware, Age: 52 years, Occu. Service, R/o. Vidyavihar, Behind Poddar Int. School Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. .. APPLICANT 465.25ABA+VERSUS 1]The State of Maharashtra Through Officer Incharge Police Station Karmad Police Station, Tq. Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. 2]The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Chh. Sambhajinagar, S.P.Office, Chh. Sambhajinagar. 3]Ganesh Anil Devkar, Age: 35 years, Occu. Pvt. Service, R/o. B-20, Meadows Hill views Homes, Mitmita, Tq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. V.S.Chaudhari & Mr.B.B.Bhise, APP for the respondent-StateMr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for respondent no.3. …WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2025 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2025 Ashok s/o. Dadasaheb Taware, Age: 52 years, Occu. Service, R/o. Vidyavihar, Behind Poddar Int. School Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1]The State of Maharashtra Through Officer Incharge Police Station Karmad Police Station, Tq. Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. 565.25ABA+2]The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Chh. Sambhajinagar, S.P.Office, Chh. Sambhajinagar. 3]Krushna Pudlik Sangle, Age: 31 years, Occu. Labour, R/o. Wanjarwadi, Post Aasegaon, Tq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.P.K.Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. V.S.Chaudhari & Mr.B.B.Bhise, APP for the respondent-StateMr.I.K.Wagh, Advocate for respondent no.3. …CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :14.02.2025ORDER : 1]Heard. For the reasons stated in the CriminalApplication Nos.4979/2024, 30/2025 and 225/2025 forassisting to the P.P., the same are allowed. CriminalApplications are disposed of accordingly. 2]Heard learned counsel for the applicants, thelearned APP for the respondent-State and the learnedcounsel for the assisting to the P.P. 3]The applicants are apprehending arrest inconnection with FIR No. 294/2024, registered with KarmadPolice Station, Tq. & Dist. Ch.Sambhajinagar, for the 665.25ABA+offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 420,464, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the IPC. 4]The FIR is filed by the complainant on behalf ofthe Radico NV Distilleries Limited, which is a Companymanufacturing Ethanol as per the requirement ofGovernment of India. The Government of India hasintroduced a scheme of buyback of ethanol and all oilcompanies are directed to purchase the ethanol, which ismanufactured by private entrepreneurs as per the rateprescribed by government. For the purpose of manufactureof ethanol, food grain is required, as such, the Governmentof India has given instructions through the FoodCorporation of India [FCI] to supply the low-quality rice toall the distilleries. 5]It is stated that the Government of Indiaallotted 50,380 Metric Tones rice for ethanol manufacturingto the companies manufacturing ethanol. Accordingly, theFCI has issued a letter on 07.02.2023 to the complainant toallot 11,655 Metric Tones rice at the rate of Rs.20,210/- permetric tone. As such, the Company deposited Rs.113 croresto the FCI through Bank by RTGS and thereafter 15distribution orders were issued by the FCI to thecomplainant company. The FCI directed the CentralWarehousing Corporation to supply rice to the complainantCompany.
Decision
1565.25ABA+19]Anticipatory Bail Application No. 65/2025 inrespect of Krushna Pundlik Sangle and Anticipatory BailApplication No. 2122 of 2024 in respect of Jinna VenkataRamana Reddy are dismissed.20]The applications stand disposed of accordingly. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC