The High Court
Case Details
932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD932 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2139 OF 2024SANTOSH ARJUN BUDHWANTVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Mr. Sandip Andhale h/for Mr. P. R. Nangare, Advocate forApplicantMr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for Respondent/StateMr. R. C. Bramhankar, Advocate for the informants.…CORAM: SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATE:09.09.2025PER COURT :- 1.Heard.2.This is an application for granting regular bail underSection 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, inconnection with Crime No.0644 of 2023, registered at RahataPolice Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishableunder Sections 420, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code andSection 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of DepositorsAct. 3.The informant averred in the report that the applicant isthe Chairman of Swamini Multipurpose Urban Nidhi Ltd. and that 1 of 9 (( 2 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024a total amount of Rs. 1,03,29,480/- deposited by various depositorshas been misappropriated by the applicant by cheating the depositors.It is further averred that the informant started investing money in thesaid fund in his name and in the name of his wife, for the purpose ofsecuring his child’s education and the future of his family. The saidfund was offering an annual interest rate of 12% and 12.5% interestwas offered to senior citizens. The deposited amounts were placed infixed deposits for a specified tenure. Initially, the depositors werereceiving their invested amounts along with interest, whichencouraged them to invest more money in the said fund. Theinformant and his wife deposited a total amount of Rs.24,95,750/- inthe said fund up to 10.09.2022 in the informant’s name and up to29.06.2022 in his wife’s name. From the year 2022, after thematurity of the deposits, the informant requested the applicant toreturn the amount along with interest. However, the applicant refusedto repay the amount. Despite several requests, the applicant returnedonly Rs.4,50,000/- to the informant. 4.The informant further averred that on 27.12.2020,although he had not applied for the post of Additional Director, hewas appointed to the said post. He subsequently submitted his 2 of 9 (( 3 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024resignation from the said position. When the informant againdemanded the remaining amount of Rs.23,94,192/-, the applicantallegedly told him that he would not repay the amount and told himto take whatever action he wanted. The informant also listed severalother individuals whose invested amounts are due from the applicantand stated that a total amount of Rs.1,03,29,480/- is outstandingwith Swamini Multipurpose Urban Nidhi Ltd. He lastly averred thatthe applicant has refused to return the investors’ money and hascommitted fraud under the guise of operating a Nidhi. Accordingly,the report was lodged. 5.The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that theapplicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Theinvestigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed. He pointedout the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. He furthersubmitted that if bail is granted to the applicant, he will abide by allthe conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The applicant hasroots in the society and he will not flee away from the trial. It is lastlyprayed to allow the application.6.The learned advocate for the applicant relied upon the 3 of 9
Legal Reasoning
(( 4 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024order passed by this Court in the case of Sunil S/o Ambadas MankapePatil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, in Bail Application No.403 of2025, in which this Court in paragraph No.5 held as under: “5.After registration of above crime, some of the accused namelyVide President Swapnarekha Chavan, Sunanda Shinde, Pandit Kawte,Vaishali Daulanpure and Uday Kulkarni are beneficiaries of eitheranticipatory bail or regular bail at the hands of this Court by variousorders. One Namdeo Kachkure, who was a Joint Manager is alsoshown to be beneficiary of bail at the hands of Apex Court by orderdated 07.01.2025. Applicant is also a Manager. He is behind bars sincemore than a year. Therefore, making the statement across the bar thatcharge is not framed and there there are no immediate prospects ofmatter going for trail and no purpose is shown to be achieved yet byfurther detention, application deserves to be allowed.”7.He further relied on the case of Siddharam SatlingappaMhetre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 (1) Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 294, in which this Court, in paragraph Nos.41, 42, 43 and 91,held as under: “41.All human beings are born with some unalienable rights like life,liberty and pursuit of happiness. The importance of these natural rightscan be found in the fact that these are fundamental for their properexistence and not other right can be enjoyed without the presence ofright to life and liberty. 42.Life bereft of liberty would be without honour and dignity and itwould lose all significance and meaning and the life itself would not beworth living. That is why “liberty” is called the very quintessence of a 4 of 9 (( 5 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024civilized existence. 43. Origin of “Liberty” can be traced in the ancient Greekcivilization. The Greeks distinguished between the liberty of the groupand the liberty of the individual. In 431 B.C., an Athenian statesmandescribed that the concept of liberty was the outcome of two notions,firstly, protection of group from attack and secondly, the ambition of thegroup to realize itself as fully as possible through the self-realization ofthe individual by way of human reason. Greeks assigned the duty ofprotecting their liberties to the State. According to Aristotle, as theState was means to fulfil certain fundamental needs of human natureand was a means for development of individuals’ personality inassociation of fellow citizen so it was natural and necessary to man.Plato found his “republic” as the best source for the achievement of theself-realization of the people. 91.In every civilized democratic country, liberty is considered to bethe most precious human right of every person. The Law Commissionof India in its 177th report under the heading ‘Introduction to thedoctrine of “Arrest” has described as follows:“Liberty is the most precious of all the human rights”. It has been the founding faith of the human race for more than 200years. Both the American Declaration of Independence, 1776 and theFrench Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizens, 1789, spokeof liberty being one of the natural and inalienable rights of man. Theuniversal declaration of human rights adopted by the general assemblyon United Nations on December 10, 1948 contains several articlesdesigned to protect and promote the liberty of individual. So does theinternational covenant on civil and political rights, 1996. Above all,Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian proclaims that no one shall bedeprived of his right to personal liberty except in accordance with theprocedure prescribed by law. Even Article 20(1) and (2) and Article 22 5 of 9 (( 6 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024are born out of a concern for human liberty. As it is often said, “onerealizes the value of liberty only when he is deprived of it”. Liberty,along with equality is the most fundamental of human rights and thefundamental reedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Of equalimportance is the maintenance of peace, law and order in the society.Unless, there is peace, no real progress is possible. Societal peace lendsstability and security to the polity. It provides the necessary conditionsfor growth, whether it is in the economic sphere or in the scientific andtechnological spheres.”8.The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicant is involved in a seriouscrime of cheating involving an amount of Rs.1,03,29,480/-. Initially,he repaid the amount deposited by the informant and others, therebygained their trust. However, after creating confidence amongst thedepositors, he subsequently refused to return the remaining amount.The learned APP further submitted that considering the seriousnature of the offence and the strong evidence against the applicant, ifhe is released on bail, he will certainly pressurize the prosecutionwitnesses and tamper with the evidence. He lastly prayed to rejectthe application.9.The learned APP relied upon the case of Tarun Kumar Vs.Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported in AIR 2024 6 of 9 (( 7 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024SC 169, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphNo.22 as under:“22.Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions,the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visitedwith a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offenceshaving deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public fundsneed to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affectingthe economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing seriousthreat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economicoffences have serious repercussions on the development of the countryas a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan MohanReddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Nimmagadda Prasad v.Central Bureau of Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate ofEnforcement (supra), State of Bihar and Another v. Amit Kumar aliasBachcha Rai. This court taking a serious note with regard to theeconomic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State ofGujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another as under:-"5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenderswho ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. Amurder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passionsbeing aroused. An economic offence is committed with coolcalculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit 7 of 9 (( 8 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard forthe interest of the community can be manifested only at the costof forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the systemto administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear ofcriticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with apermissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the NationalEconomy and National Interest..."10.Perused the charge-sheet, particularly the report,statements of witnesses and the audit report. It is evident that thewitnesses have specifically stated that they invested money in theapplicant’s fund and the applicant has refused to return that amount.The charge sheet has already been filed. The applicant is involved ina serious crime of cheating involving an amount of Rs.1,03,29,480/-.No doubt, personal liberty is a precious fundamental right, however,that liberty is always subject to the rule of law and the specific facts ofthe case, which are decisive. In the present case, the applicant isalleged to have committed a serious economic offence. Such offencessignificantly impact the economy of the society and ultimately thenation’s development. Economic offences are generally committedwith meticulous planning and deliberate intent and they carry serious 8 of 9 (( 9 ))932(1) BA NO. 2139 OF 2024consequences for the community at large. It is well-settled principlethat the outcome of such applications depends on the facts andcircumstances of each individual case. Therefore, the case laws reliedupon by the learned advocate for the applicant, namely Sunil(Supra) and Siddharam (supra) are not applicable to the presentcase. The application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, thefollowing order: ::ORDER::I.The application is rejected.II.The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing ofthe case and decide it as early as possible. However, it is clarified thatif there is any other case pending before the Trial Court which hasbeen expedited by this Court or the Supreme Court, such case shall bedecided first and thereafter, the present case shall be taken up forhearing and decision. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 9 of 9