High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) {ba1512.24}IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD902 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1512 OF 2024ABHISHEK JAGDISH JAISWALVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAWITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3835 OF 2024 IN BA/1512/2024RAJENDRA NAMDEO JADHAVVERSUSABHISHEK JAGDISH JAISWAL AND ANOHTERWITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3908 OF 2024 IN BA/1512/2024SHAIKH FUZEL AHMED S/O SHAIKH ZUBER AHMED AND OTHERSVERSUSABHISHEK JAGDISH JAISWAL AND ANOTHERMr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. N.S. Ghanekar a/w. Mr.Ramankumar G. Dodiya, Advocate for the applicant.Mr.Joydeep Chatterji and Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for the intervenors inthe respective criminal applications.Mr.A.S. Shinde, APP for the respondent-State.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:25.10.2024PC :-01.This application is filed seeking release of the applicant onbail in connection with Crime No.61 of 2024, registered with VedantNagar Police Station, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar, for the offencespunishable under sections 406, 409. 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IndianPenal Code. ( 2 ) {ba1512.24}02.In the FIR it is alleged that this applicant has availed a loanof Rs. 9 crore by furnishing false and fabricated documents. In the loanproposal, he offered a property bearing CTS No.17850/2 having areaadmeasuring 2395.94 sq.mtr. It is shown that the said land is purchasedby him by sale-deed dated 31.12.2018. After obtaining the loan, therewas default in repayment of loan amount. The bank, therefore, startedrecovery proceedings. In the recovery proceedings, the bank created acharge on the said land. The original owners of the said land approachedthe bank with complaint that the mortgaged land belongs to them andthey have never transferred the land in favour of anyone else. Theywere surprised to see that the bank has put up a board on their property.On that, the bank made enquiry with the Sub-Registrar’s Office about thesaid document. In reply to the enquiry, the Sub-Registrar Officecommunicated that there is no such document registered with the officeof the Sub-Registrar by communication dated 19.04.2024. It is, thus,revealed that the applicant has furnished false and fabricated documentswith the bank while obtaining loan. The fabrication came to be noticedonly when the bank started recovery proceedings and took symbolicpossession of the said property. Immediately, on getting the loanamount, said amount is transferred on very same day in the account of
Legal Reasoning
( 3 ) {ba1512.24}three different firms and in individual account of this accused. Thecomplaint, therefore came to be lodged. The accused came to bearrested immediately on lodging the complaint.03.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh for theapplicant submits that the applicant is behind the bars since 26.04.2024.The applicant himself is deceived by the original owners of the property.The applicant himself had been to the Police Commissioner on22.04.2024 with application making allegations against the owners withapplication. He has also fled a Special Civil Suit seeking declarationagainst the original owners on 19.04.2024. The suit is still pending. Hesubmits that the maximum punishment for the offence under section 409of the IPC is 10 years, however, ingredients of section 409 are notattracted. Even section 467 is not attracted and offence alleged wouldbe only of forgery, where punishment is only two years. Maximumpunishment provided for the offence punishable under section 420 of theIPC is seven years. All the offences are triable by the Magistrate. He hasalready undergone practically six months imprisonment till now. Hesubmits that the criminal proceeding is not for recovery of the amount.The co-accused is already released on bail. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Deshmukh further pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge in his ( 4 ) {ba1512.24}order itself has observed that the offence is triable by the learnedMagistrate, however, refused bail only stating that the offence is serious.Thus, he prays for the bail of the applicant.04.The learned APP submits that mens rea is apparent on theface of record. It is not civil dispute as tried to be shown by theapplicant. In the FIR, there are clear allegations made against theaccused persons. Some of the accused persons are still absconding andthus the investigation is still pending. In-fact the officers of the bank arealso not traceable as they are absconding. Inspite of investigation tillnow the amount is not traced. Money of the bank is ultimately money ofdepositors. He submits that the applicant is an influential person. If he isreleased on bail, he would influence the witnesses and tamper with theevidence.05.Learned APP relies on the judgment in the case ofNimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013Cr.L.J. 3449 to submit that no bail be granted when the allegations aregenuine. He further relied upon judgment in the case of Y.S. JaganMohan Reddy. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in2013 Cr.L.J. 2734 S.C. and lastly on the judgment in the case of ( 5 ) {ba1512.24}Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC2514. 06.Learned Advocate Mr. Chatterji though has filed application toassist the learned APP, this Court has heard him for the complainant. Hesubmits that the Assistant Registrar has clearly stated that no such sale-deed is executed in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Thus, he prays forrejection of the application.07.Learned Advocate Mr. H.I. Pathan for another intervenor inanother application submits that in this case the property of his client isshown to have been transferred in favour of accused No.1. Saiddocument is totally false. His clients were surprised to see a board of thebank on their property, showing that the property is mortgaged to thebank and a charge is created. Learned Advocate Mr.H.I. Pathan furtherstates that the signatures of the owners are forged. The defence nowsought to be raised is false and after thought. He thus prays forrejection of the application.08.The learned Senior Advocate relies upon judgment passed bythe Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2743 of 2024 in the ( 6 ) {ba1512.24}case of Krishna Damani Vs. State of West Bengal.09.Considering all above facts, this Court has to consider as towhether a case is made out to keep the applicant in the custody. Co-accused – Ambrish Jagdish Jaiswal is also already released on bail.There is no complaint of misuse of his liberty by the said accused. Thecharge-sheet is also filed. Other accused persons are absconding, cannotbe a ground to reject the application of the present applicant. It issettled position that the criminal prosecution is not for recovery of theamount. For these reasons, this Court is inclined to allow thisapplication. Hence, the following order :-ORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)The applicant shall be released on bail in connectionwith Crime No.61 of 2024 registered with Vedant NagarPolice Station, Dist. Aurangabad for the offencepunishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468,471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code onfurnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (RupeesThirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the likeamount.(iii)The applicant shall attend the concerned police stationas and when called by the investigating officer for thepurpose of investigation. ( 7 ) {ba1512.24}(iv)The applicant shall not tamper the prosecution evidenceand shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.(v)The applicant shall give his contact details like mobilephone number, address etc. and in case there is anychange in the contact details, same shall be informedimmediately to the concerned police station.(vi)Criminal Application Nos. 3835 of 2024 and 3908 of2024 for assist to learned APP are allowed and disposedoff.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2024/oct24/ba1512.24