High Court

Legal Reasoning

ABA 179/241IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 179 OF 2024Ajay s/o Chandraprakash Baheti,Age 50 yrs., Occu. Director of M/s. India Megha Agro Anaj Ltd.,R/o. Plot No. D-3, D-3/1, Krushnoor MIDC, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded....Applicant.Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station, Kuntoor,Tq. Naigaon, District Nanded.2.The Superintendent of Police,Nanded, District Nanded. ...Respondents....Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b. Advocates Mr. G.K. Naik-Thigle a/w.Mr. Y.A. Jadhav.Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :25/04/2025ORDER : 1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP forthe respondent-State.2.The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest inconnection with FIR No.166/2023 dated 18.09.2023 registered with KunturPolice Station, Tq. Naigaon, District Nanded, for the offences punishableunder sections 420, 406, 409, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3.This Court vide order dated 2.2.2024 has granted interim protectionto the applicant. Vide order dated 17.2.2025, this Court at para 3 to 7 hasobserved as under :-“3]The learned counsel for the applicant submits that thecase pertains to the period between 01.02.2021 to ABA 179/24231.12.2021 and the FIR is registered on 18.09.2023. It isalso stated that the applicant was in custody in anothercrime from 01.01.2018 to 07.07.2022 for an offencepunishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 477-Aand 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section Section 3 and 4 of thePrevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It was stated inthat FIR that the applicant has mis-utilized the grains anddefrauded the Food Corporation of India. The applicant wasreleased on bail by order dated 07.07.2022 passed by theBombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur by prima-facie holdingthat there is reasonable ground to believe that the applicantis not guilty of the said offences and there is a reasonableground to believe that applicant is not likely to commit anysuch offence in future as required under the PMLA Act andwas granted bail. The said order was challenged before theSupreme Court and the SLP was also dismissed.4]The learned counsel for the applicant submits thatalthough the applicant was in jail from 01.01.2018 till07.07.2022, no offence was registered against the applicantduring the above period, although, it is alleged that thepresent offence has been taken place in the year 2021. Thelearned counsel submits that although the trial is stillpending for the offence in which bail was granted to theapplicant, in the present F.I.R. it is alleged that the applicanthas defrauded the agriculturist. It is also stated that theapplicant has cheated the farmers by not paying them. Thelearned counsel for the applicant has also produced the listof various farmers to whom the applicant has made paymentto the tune of Rs.66,20,88,771/- and the outstandingamount due is Rs.16,82,71,981/-. He submits that while hewas in jail, the factory was not functioning and as such therewas outstanding dues. He also submits that when the matterwas proceeded before NCLT, nobody represented thefarmers cause. It is stated that the applicant represented thecase of the farmers before the NCLT and now the order hasbeen passed by accepting the resolution and amount ofRs.8,41,35,991/- is approved for disbursement to thefarmers out of the sale proceeds of the assets of thecompany.5]The learned counsel for the applicant submits thatthere is no criminality involved. He also submits that thecase is not bonafide and that the FIR was registered against ABA 179/243the applicant only when the applicant was released on bail,after remaining in custody for 3 to 4 years. Considering thisaspect of the matter, the applicant has made out prima faciecase for grant of anticipatory bail in the present anticipatorybail application.6]The learned counsel submits that this Court hasgranted interim protection to the applicant by order dated02.02.2024. The applicant was directed to attend theconcerned police station as and when required. The learnedcounsel for the applicant submits that the applicant hasattended the concerned police station and cooperated withthe investigation. He therefore prays to confirm the interimprotection granted earlier.7]The learned APP seeks time to take instructions. Onhis request, list this matter on 25.02.2025. Interim relief tocontinue till then.”4.By order dated 18.03.2025, it was clarified that the total periodundergone in custody by the applicant is 20 months and not 3 to 4 years asnoted above.5.It is stated that the applicant has made various transactions with theagriculturists and has made payment to the tune of Rs. 66,20,88,771/- andthe outstanding amount due is Rs. 16,82,71,981/-. It is stated that while hewas in jail, the factory was not functioning and as such there wasoutstanding dues. It is stated that when the matter was proceeded beforeNCLT, the applicant himself represented the case of the farmers before theNCLT. The learned APP submits that the applicant has taken agriculturalproduces from the agriculturists and not paid for the same to the tune ofRs.16,82,71,981/- and thus, he has cheated the agriculturists. 6.Considering that the applicant was in jail for long period of time underPrevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act’ for short) andconsidering that in the said PMLA proceedings, the applicant has been ABA 179/244granted bail and the applicant faced losses in business, it cannot be saidthat the applicant intended to defraud the farmers. Thus, the applicant isprima facie not involved in the present crime. At best, it can be said thatthe applicant’s company has gone in losses and that there was no intentionof the applicant either to cheat or there is any breach of trust. In view ofthe above, the interim protection granted on 2.2.2024 and thereafterextended by this Court from time to time needs to be confirmed.7.In view of the above, the application is allowed and the interimprotection granted on 2.2.2024 is confirmed on the following terms : i]The applicant shall attend the police station as and whenrequired.ii]The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of theprosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant,witnesses and other persons concerned with the case. iii]The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also inthe proceedings before the trial Court. 8.In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified inthis order, it shall be liable to be cancelled. 9.It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limitedfor the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trialCourt shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 10.The application stands disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]SSC/