High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 949-BA-781-24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 781 OF 2024Imran Issak Shaikh,Age 35 years, Occu. Service,R/o. Golibar Tekdi Javal,28-A, Chaitanya Nagar, Dhule,Tq. and Dist. DhuleAt present R/o. Room No.1, Building No.18,Police Head Quarter, Dhule,Tq. and Dist. Dhule..ApplicantVersusThe State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Azadnagar Police Station,Tq. and Dist. Dhule..RespondentMr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for Applicant;Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent...WITHBAIL APPLICATION NO. 798 OF 2024Swati w/o. Roshan Patil,Age 46 years, Occu. Service,R/o. Flat No.6, Menlo Park,Pipeline Road, Nashik,Tq. Nashik, Dist. Nashik..ApplicantVersusThe State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Azadnagar Police Station,Tq. and Dist. Dhule..Respondent...Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. S. R. Sapkal, Advocate for Applicant;Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent... 2 949-BA-781-24.odtCORAM :S. G. MEHARE, J.DATE:03-07-2024PER COURT :-1.Heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant and thelearned A.P.P. for the respondent.2.The applicants seek bail in C.R.No.02 of 2024 registered withAzadnagar Police Station, Taluka and District Dhule, for theoffences punishable under Sections 490, 420, 341, 170, 171, 201,120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3.The applicant, Swati was serving with H.D.F.C. Bank. Theprosecution case is that the applicants in collusion and conspiracywere extracting money from the owners of goods, impersonatingthemselves as G.S.T. Department Officers. They threatened thedrivers of the vehicles, saying that they would have to be chargedfor not paying G.S.T. The other co-accused were asking them topay money to settle the matter. To transfer the extracted money,the applicant helped them open the bank accounts where she wasserving in the name of her domestic servants and sister. The mainaccused who were extracting the money from the drivers were thepolicemen. It was their modus operandi to extract money onsettlement. They used to collect the money in the bank account byelectronic mode. The applicant is the sister of one of the co-accused, serving in the police department. When the crime was 3 949-BA-781-24.odtdetected, it was transpired that the persons in whose names thebank accounts did not know who was operating their accounts. 4.Learned senior counsel for the applicant has vehementlyargued that the role attributed to the applicant, Swati, does notlink her with the crime. She was serving in the bank. She used toopen account for the citizens. Many accounts were opened forGovernment benefits in the name of women. She was not thebeneficiary of so-called extracted money by committing the crime.She is married, having no antecedents to her discredit. She has asmall child. She faced the investigation. She has been languishingin jail since January 2024. The crime was unearthed. When thecrime was unearthed, she served with Bharti Axa Life InsuranceCompany Ltd. Since she was absent from her work, she wasremoved from her services. Her child is suffering from "UpperRespiratory Tract Infection & Fever". He needs his mother's care.She has roots in Nashik. So, there is no chance of her absconding.She, being a lady, has been falsely implicated in the crime. Thealleged offences are triable by the Magistrate. The trial may takeits time.5.Learned senior counselfor the applicant relied on thejudgment and order of the Honourable Supreme Court passed inthe case of Krishna Damani Versus State of West Bengal,Criminal Appeal No.2743 of 2024 [Arising out of S.L.P. 4 949-BA-781-24.odt(Criminal) No.6954 of 2024] and vehemently argued thatfurther custody of the applicant is not essential. There is nopossibility of influencing the witnesses or interfering with thefurther investigation, if any. On the above premises, he prayed togrant her bail.6.It has been alleged against the applicant. Imran that he wasthe driver of the vehicle of the police department. He wasintroducing the other co-accused as G.S.t. Officers. He was playingactive role in committing a crime. 7.His counsel argued that he had no role to play. Being thesubordinate, he had to follow the instructions of the co-accused,his seniors. He was just driving the vehicle for patrolling. Hence,he may be granted bail.8.Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the application. Hesubmits that she knew well that her brother operated the accountsof the women for extracting money from the owners of the goodstransport vehicles under the pretext of not paying G.S.T. She waswell aware that she had no reason to allow a third person tooperate the bank account. After the money was transferred to thebank account, another co-accused used to collect the money fromthe bank, and it was distributed. She was the beneficiary ofextracted money. Though the chargesheet has been filed, theinvestigation is in progress to find out whether any similar offences 5 949-BA-781-24.odtwere committed. The other offences were already registered onsimilar allegations. She has no reason to allow a third person tooperate the account of the domestic servant and her own sister. Itis a big scam and a misuse of the authority of the policemen inconspiracy. The applicant knew well that the bank accounts of thedomestic servants were used for the illegal extraction of money.Being a citizen, she was duty-bound to maintain her honesty withthe public as well as her employer. Merely the offence is triable bythe Magistrate is no ground to grant bail. The findings of the caseof Krushnaji were based on a specific fact. It is not ruled that bailshould be granted only for the reason that it is triable by theMagistrate. The offence is grave. Her family would take care of herchild.9.The case of prosecution as well as defence of the applicant,as discussed above, need not be reproduced. However, primafacie it is evident that the applicant opened the bank accounts inthe name of domestic servants and her sister and allowed themain accused to operate without their knowledge. All bankaccount passbooks were with her. She knew that the main accusedwas operating their accounts. She had opened the bank account ofthe servant. The prosecution has evidence that so-calledextracting money by the co-accused by misusing their power aspolicemen and transferring the extracted money to the bankaccounts that the applicant had opened. There is also evidence of 6 949-BA-781-24.odtwithdrawal of amounts. This seems to be a well-planned crime inwhich the applicant has played an active role. The gravity of theoffence is one of the factors to be considered while granting bail.Sufficient evidence is available on record to believe that it was adishonest intention to cheat the people. It is a black dot on thepolice machinery whose duty is to protect the common man. Thebank officer is also supposed to manage the account of thecommon man. Be that as it may, the Court is not inclined to grantbail after having gone through the papers and the role attributedto the applicant and evidence collected against her. In view ofthese peculiar facts, the case of Krishna Damani (supra) wouldnot assist the applicant.10.Learned APP opposed the application of Imran, contendingthat the applicant's past is not good. He was actively participatingin the crime. He was held guilty and punished for similar conductin a departmental inquiry. He had knowledge of the offencecommitted. He was assisting the co-accused by introducing him asGST Officer. He was in contact with the person. He was also incontact with other similar co-accused.11.For the above reasons, the applications stand dismissed. ( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGErrd