High Court
Legal Reasoning
BA-183-2025+-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2025Vasant s/o Ramrao Dabhade,Age 63 years, Retired ophthalmic,Assistant Officer, R/o Swarajya Nagar,Barshi Road, Beed, Taluka and District Beed.… ApplicantVersusThe State of MaharashtraThrough P.I. Police Station,Georai, Taluka Georai,District Beed.… RespondentWITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 720 OF 2025IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2025Mahesh Shridharrao Makal,Age 43 years, Occupation-Agriculture,R/o. Nagar Road, Beed,Taluka and District Beed.… ApplicantVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Police Inspector,Police Station Georai,District Beed.2.Dr. Vasant Ramrao DabhadeAge Major, Occupation – Medical Practitioner,R/o. Swarajya Nagar, Beed,Taluka and District Beed.… Respondents
Legal Reasoning
BA-183-2025+-2- …..Mr. R. G. Hande, Advocate for the Applicant in Bail Application No.183 of 2025 and Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No. 720 of2025.Mr. S. E. Shekade, Advocate for the Applicant in Criminal ApplicationNo. 720 of 2025.Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State in both applications...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 11.03.2025Pronounced on: 18.03.2025ORDER : 1.Criminal Application No. 720 of 2025 is at the instance of theoriginal informant, seeking permission to assist APP in prosecutingthe bail application. For the reasons mentioned the application,applicant is permitted to assist APP. Criminal Application No. 720 of2025 is accordingly disposed off.2.Applicant in Bail Application No. 183 of 2025 seeks grant ofregular bail on account of his arrest in crime no. 391 of 2023registered at Georai Police Station, District Beed for offencespunishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 477-A, 120-B of IPC as wellas Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest ofDepositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, “MPIDAct”) and Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. BA-183-2025+-3- 3.Pointing to the date of arrest of the applicant as 16.08.2024,learned counsel submits that the applicant is a retired medical officer(ophthalmologist). That, he has been falsely implicated onaccusations that he lured informant and others with Government Job.That, report was lodged on 28.07.2023 and substance of theallegations is that, assuring job in Health Department, informant andothers were made to part with cash, and some with their deposits.Learned counsel submits that applicant has no nexus with the episodeof assurance of job, nor he has any connection with the bank whereinamounts were either transferred by way of fixed deposits, or by wayof investments. That, such allegations are against one Ajit Kale.Learned counsel submitted that cheques are said to be tendered in thebank, but who are the signatories and who issued cheques, is notclear. That, even after conducting entire investigation, charge sheetdoes not carry any material to pinpoint involvement of applicant.That, he is not beneficiary of any amount. Mere rough entries aretaken as a basis and allegations are levelled against applicant also. 4.Learned counsel further submitted that other co-accusedChandrakant Kale, who is similarly situated and almost of same age,against whom similar allegation are levelled, is beneficiary of bail. BA-183-2025+-4- That, said Chandrakant Kale was also neither Director of the bank norhe has concern with the operations of the bank. That, presentapplicant has also not officiated in any capacity in the bank. LikeChandrakant Kale, present applicant is already 63 years of age and hehas heart ailment, coupled with diabetes. That, his daughter is alsodifferently abled. That, applicant is behind bars since more than sixmonths and his family members need him. 5.Learned counsel pointed out that, even going by the chargesheet, none of the ingredients to attract Sections 406, 409 and 477 oreven Section 3 of the MPID Act can be gravitated against theapplicant, because he has not attracted money investment, nor hasmade informant or others invest money in the bank. That, chargesheet is filed way back on 26.10.2023 itself. Applicant is behind barssince more than six months. According to learned counsel, entireevidence pertains to documentary evidence. That, no further recoveryor discovery is to be made at the instance of the applicant. Therefore,learned counsel questions applicant’s further continued custody as,according to him, there are no immediate prospects of matter goingfor trial. BA-183-2025+-5- 6.Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the informant, whois permitted to assist learned APP, both have strongly opposed on theground that applicant is also main accused along with other accused.That, he is the one, who knew informant and had assured him toarrange Government job for his wife. They both pointed out thatinitially, job was assured for Rs.18,00,000/-, but courtesy was tried tobe shown due to long acquaintance and deal was finalized atRs.13,00,000/-. That, time to time, trusting applicant, informant hasparted with lakhs of rupees. That, inspite of assurance of job, no jobwas given. Rather, informant’s money was also not returned, andtherefore, it is clear pre determined, intentional cheating and fraud.They both opposed on the ground that role of other accused, who isbeneficiary of bail, cannot be equated and hence, both of them submitthat ground of parity cannot be taken recourse to. Consequently, theyoppose bail.7.Heard. Perused the papers. Report dated 28.07.2023 at theinstance of Mahesh Makal is that, he is an agriculturist. He claims tobe acquainted with present applicant since 15 to 20 years and havegood relations. Informant claims that in April 2019, present applicantapproached him and informed him about a friend, namely Ajit Kale, BA-183-2025+-6- Chairman of the Shrimantyogi Urban Nidhi Limited bank, and thatsaid friend has good political connections and he also fixesGovernment jobs. That, without consulting informant, presentapplicant allegedly put up a word for job for wife of presentinformant. It is further reported that informant was also introduced toAjit Kale and there were talks in the vehicle of Ajit kale and he tooassured of arranging job for informant’s wife in health department. Itis reported that informant was sceptical regarding age of his wife andwhether she would be qualified, but present applicant and Ajit kaleassured him that they would manage the same and not to worry. It isalleged that informant was asked to arrange Rs.18,00,000/- andfinally on negotiations, figure was brought down to Rs.13,00,000/-. Itis further stated that Ajit Kale also assured him of returning theamount with 9% interest if the work is not done. Therefore, trustingaccused applicant, informant claims that, he parted with amounts inAugust 2019, June 2020, April 2021 and April 2022, i.e. to the tuneof Rs.13,00,000/-. That, repeatedly informant was making inquirywith both, present applicant and Ajit Kale, but due to onset of Covid,they were buying time. Finally, informant realized that economicfraud has been played on him by assuring job and therefore abovereport has been lodged. BA-183-2025+-7- 8.Informant further claims that when he went to lodge report, herealized that there are several other persons also, from whom, insimilar manner, by assuring job, amounts have been extracted andthere is failure to return the same. On above FIR, crime is registered.9.Learned counsel for the applicant points out that co-accusedChandrakant Kale is already beneficiary of bail. Learned counsel triesto equate the case of present applicant with that of said ChandrakantKale, who is father is Ajit Kale, i.e. on the ground of age, ailment andtherefore, seeks parity. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for theinformant have both opposed on the ground that role of presentapplicant and said co-accused Chandrakant Kale cannot be equated toclaim parity. 10.After considering the papers, charge sheet and contents of theFIR, prima facie it is emerging that it is present applicant who, on hisown accord, has approached present informant and without theirbeing any request, word is said to be put for employment of wife ofinformant. In spite of 15 to 20 years relations, amount to the tune ofRs.13,00,000/- has been accepted by present applicant and co-accused Ajit Kale. Since 2019 till reporting, there is not only failure tofix the job, but even the amounts are not repaid and attempt is made BA-183-2025+-8- to pay in piecemeal by issuing cheques. Informant has reported that,when he went to lodge report, at that time he came to know thatthere are as many as 27 persons, who had landed in similar situationand were lured on promise of job and sums of various amounts weretaken from them. 11.Charge sheet shows that initially, only Chandrakant Kale andAjay Kokane were available and arrested and proceedings underSection 299 of Cr.P.C. were instituted against present applicant andnine others. Submissions made before this Court that, applicant hasno concern with the bank or Ajit Kale and that, he is not is a positionto arrange job, cannot be entertained, more particularly wheninformant has named present applicant for himself approaching himand assuring Government job. As pointed out by learned counsel,there is also force in the submission that role directed to ChandrakantKale cannot be equated against present applicant, becauseChandrakant Kale seems to be father of main accused Ajit Kale, whompresent applicant introduced informant and only these three personswere present when there was assurance of job. Payments were madeto present applicant. Said co-accused Chandrakant Kale was notprimarily named in the FIR for assuring job or accepting money,which has contrarily happened in the case of present applicant. BA-183-2025+-9- Therefore, even this Court is not convinced about the ground of parityto be coming into play. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:ORDERThe application is dismissed. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre