Vaishali Vishal Mudale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 5044 Bom

 Rng                                         1                                                     
                                                                                                      cr.ba.1332.17


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         BAIL APPLICATION NO.1332 OF 2017

 Vaishali Vishal Mudale                  }                                 
 Age 35 years, Occu;Service
 R/o A-2, Nagnath Mistry Compound    }
 Kaju Pada, Ganesh Chowl, Borivali (East)
 Mumbai-400 066                           }
 (at present lodged in Byculla Central Prison,
 Mumbai)                                   }                                 .. Applicant
                                                                          (Orig.Accd no.13)
                    vs

 State of Maharashtra
 vide its C.R.No.336 of 2015
 registered at Dahisar Police Station
 Mumbai investigated by police attached to
 State CID,Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai            .. Respondent
                         ...

Ms.Shubhada Khot for Applicant Mr.Praveen Chavan, Special Public Prosecutor with Smt.Veera Shinde APP for State.

...

                         CORAM:  PRAKASH D.NAIK, J  
                         DATE:      26 JULY 2017
 P.C.

1. This is an application for bail in connection with

C.R.No.336 of 2015 registered with Dahisar Police Station and

investigated by State CID, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai. The

cr.ba.1332.17

offences were registered under sections 406,408,

409,420,465,467,468,471,384,201,120(B),109 read with section 34

of Indian Penal Code and under sections 7,8,13 (1) (c) (d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The applicant surrendered before the investigating

agency on 21.12.2016. The applicant has been impleaded as accused

no.13 and shown to have been arrested in Special case No.104 of

2015 @ Special Case No.18 of 2017.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

(a) It is alleged that the accused had acted in connivance with each other and committed misappropriation of the funds of Lok Shahir Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation.The accused conspired and diverted funds of the Corporation for their personal use and benefit.

(b) The applicant was appointed as a Clerk on daily wages since 12.7.2010. The applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant Deputy Manager (Administration) since

cr.ba.1332.17

16.8.2012 by the main accused. The co-accused Ramesh Kadam, Shravan Bawane and Santosh Ingale promoted the applicant as a Law Officer from 11.8.2014. The appointment and promotion was not done in accordance with rules and regulations.

(c) During the period 13.8.2012 to 12.8.2014, the applicant-accused in the capacity as Assistant Deputy Manager conspired with the other accused and prepared forged Resolution nos.83/14/4 and 84/13. These Resolutions were not in the agenda. The Applicant had purchased a plot at Aurangabad under the guise of loan sanctioned by the Corporation to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. The accused had obtained Rs.21 lakhs from co-accused Pawandeep Kohli and Rs.10 lakhs from one Yogesh Shinde. The applicant-accused was not entitled to obtain loan to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs from the Corporation considering her tenure as an employee of the Corporation. The plot was purchased for a consideration of Rs.51 lakhs.

(d) It is alleged that in the capacity as Deputy General Manager, the applicant had acted in connivance with other accused in implementing forged Resolutions to grant loan of Rs.30 crores to M/s Maitri Sugar and Trading Pvt.Ltd,

cr.ba.1332.17

Rs.5,33,90,000/- to Mahalaxmi Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Solapur and Rs.1.3 crore to Prathamesh Magasvargiya Vahatuk Sanstha. It is also alleged that the amount of Rs.21 lakhs has been transferred to the account of the applicant from the account of Pawandeep Kohli through his company Mahindra Enterprises, who was involved in misappropriation of funds. It is alleged that amount was transferred from Corporation to company of Shri.Kohli.

4. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has

been filed against the applicant on 17.3.2017.The First Information

Report was registered on 18.7.2015. Apprehending arrest, the

applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the

Special Judge, Mumbai.The said application was rejected by the

Special Judge by an order dated 14.12.2015. The applicant

thereafter preferred an application for Anticipatory bail before this

Court.Interim protection was granted to the applicant. The said

application was rejected on 23.11.2016.The applicant then

approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave

Appeal which was dismissed on 16.12.2016. On 21.12.2016 as stated

cr.ba.1332.17

above, the applicant surrendered before the Investigating Officer.

5. The applicant thereafter preferred an application for bail

before the Special Judge. The said application No.68 of 2016 was

rejected by the Court on 7.1.2017.Thereafter the applicant preferred

Bail Application No.131 of 2017 which was withdrawn as a

statement was made by the Special Public Prosecutor that the charge

sheet is ready for filing and the said application was allowed to be

withdrawn by an order dated 7.3.2017 by keeping all contentions

open. The charge sheet was filed on 17.3.2017 which was numbered

as Special case No.18 of 2017.The applicant preferred an application

for bail before the Special Court vide Exhibit 3. The said application

was rejected on 8.5.2017. Thereafter, the present application for bail

is preferred before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is

no evidence against the applicant showing her involvement in the

alleged crime. She is not concerned with misappropriation of funds.

cr.ba.1332.17

There is no evidence of transfer of alleged misappropriated funds

into the account of the applicant. It is submitted that there was no

irregularity in the appointment of the applicant. She was appointed

as a Clerk on daily wages basis being educated unemployed on

12.7.2010 which appointment was confirmed by 75 th Board Meeting

on 10.7.2012. On 16.8.2012 the applicant was appointed as

Administrative Deputy Manager as per the Roaster system as a N.T

category candidate. On 11.8.2014 the applicant was promoted to the

post of Law Officer with effect from 1.8.2016 with Departmental

Notification and on 1.9.2014 the applicant was given an additional

charge to the post of Deputy General Manager (Administration). It is

submitted that the applicant belongs to Hindu Dhangar community

which is a scheduled Nomadic tribe and is entitled for State

Reservation Policy. The applicant is a graduate in Arts. It is

submitted that the applicant has also completed her post-graduate

degree in Law from Mumbai University and passed her LL.M

examination in the year 2014. It is further submitted that the

applicant was required to handle salaries, leave attendance, transfers

cr.ba.1332.17

in the Corporation. She had no decision power or sanctioning

authority in the Corporation and she was not attending meetings of

Board of Directors. She was not responsible for the day-to-day

administration, management and working of the Corporation.

7. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted

that the allegations with respect to manipulation of the agenda and

minutes of the Board meetings are devoid of any merits. There is no

evidence that the applicant has destroyed the proceedings of meeting

Nos.83 and 84 and that she had participated in implementing the

forged Resolutions by which loan was granted to M/s Maitri Sugar

and Trading Pvt.Ltd, Mahalaxmi Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha

and Prathamesh Magasvargiya Vahatuk Sanstha. It is sumitted that

in relation to the transactions of M/s Maitri Sugar and Trading

Pvt.Ltd and Komral Pvt.Ltd, accused-Vyomesh Shah (Accused No..7)

Kiran Contractor (Accused no.8) and Suhas Dumbre (Accused no.9)

came to be arrested. Accused-Vyomesh Shah is the Managing

Director of Hubtown Ltd and he has filed an undertaking in the

cr.ba.1332.17

Court of the learned Special Judge that Hubtown will deposit an

amount of Rs.59 crores on behalf of three accused. Say was filed by

the prosecution giving no objection to release the said accused on

bail. Accordingly, the said accused were granted bail by the Special

Court vide order dated 12.2.2016. It is further submitted that in

respect to the allegations about payment made to Total Earth Movers

and Sterling Motors for purchase of vehicles a resolution was passed

to pay Rs.1.30 crores as a loan. Three vehicles were purchased by

Prathamesh Magasvargiya Vahatuk Sahakari Sanstha. During the

course of investigation, two vehicles have been seized. Concerned

accused namely Umesh Kadam has been released on anticipatory bail

by the Special Court vide order dated 21.12.2015. It is further

submitted that as far as the allegation of transfer of amount of

Rs.1.30 crores from the account of the Corporation to Mahalaxmi

Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha which was thereafter transferred

to the account of Komral Realty Pvt. Ltd the accused-Smt Nakusa

Kadam and Smt. Laxmi Lokhande who were Directors of Mahalaxmi

Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha were arrested and released on

cr.ba.1332.17

bail by the Special Judge vide an order dated 30.07.2015. It is

further submitted that the prosecution is relying upon the statements

of Vandana Rane, Additional Deputy General Manager (Project),

Avinash Mandke Accountant (Recovery), and Dilip Khude Regional

Manager. It is submitted that the above witnesses did not state

anything incriminating against the applicant. Witness-Dilip Khude

has stated that the agenda is prepared by high-ranking Officers of the

Region on the basis of the in-puts given by them. The agenda is then

given to the Managing Director for his approval. The duty of the

applicant is to make a compilation of the subjects for the agenda

suggested by high-ranking Officers. After approval of the Managing

Director notices are sent to others. It is submitted that the applicant

is not a influential person to decide and manipulate the agenda. It is

submitted that final decision on the agenda is made by the Managing

Director and in the event the decision is taken at the 11th hour by the

Managing Director such an agenda can be incorporated with the

permission of the Chairman. It is further submitted that the Board

meetings were conducted in consonance with the Memorandum and

cr.ba.1332.17

Articles of Association. The investigating authorities are attributing

the role of destroying Resolution Nos.83 and 84 without any basis. It

is submitted that on reading of the statement of the witnesses all

minutes are recorded once the meeting of the Board is over and

there is no chance of manipulation. The minutes are recorded after

certification of the Managing Director. The agenda is discussed by all

the administrative heads. The applicant was not the person attended

during the meeting or concerned with it. The applicant was to

prepare the agenda which would after scrutiny by the Managing

Director was issued to the attendees on his directions. The meeting

was attended by seven Directors including the Chairman who is

impleaded as an accused. It is submitted that other persons who

attended the meeting were not held liable. There is no material

brought forth by the prosecution to substantiate its allegations with

respect to misappropriation of money or destruction of the

proceedings of books of meeting. The witnesses do not say that the

applicant was responsible for preparing the Resolutions and its

implementation or its destruction in any manner. She was not part of

cr.ba.1332.17

the Board meetings in which Resolutions were passed. The

Resolutions are signed by Directors of the Corporation and two

Government Officers.The learned Advocate further submitted that

there is no allegation that the applicant had added the agenda to

Resolution no.84 concerning Mahalaxmi Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari

Sanstha.It is submitted that the applicant is the Administrative

Officer having no authority or power with respect to decision-making

and she cannot be held responsible for the contents of Resolutions

passed and signed by the Board of Directors. Advocate for the

applicant submitted that under the registered Sale Deed dated

25.7.2014 the applicant has purchased a plot of land admeasuring 4

acres at Aurangabad for a consideration of Rs.51 lacs. The applicant

had secured a loan from the Corporation in the sum of Rs.20 lacs.

Rs.10 lacs was secured as loan from Yogesh Shinde and Rs.21 lacs

from Mahendra Enterprises owned by Pavandeep Kohli.The

allegation that the said transaction is illegal is baseless. There is no

illegality in the loan secured by the applicant. The amount of Rs.20

lacs was transferred by RTGS. There is valid Sale Deed between the

cr.ba.1332.17

applicant and the vendor namely Rajesh Bhattad. Statement of

Rajesh Bhattad has been recorded by the Investigating Officer on

10.8.2016. Statement of Yogesh Shinde and Pawandeep Kohli were

also recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. It is submitted that there is a reference of the bank

account, statement of Pawandeep Kohli, Mahesh Enterprises and

Tejinder Kaur Kohli, mother of Pawandeep Kohli. Statement of

Ganesh Kuber who is a witness to the Sale Deed is also recorded.

Statement of Jayesh Joshi was also recorded who is an accused in

this case. It is submitted that statement of Jayesh Joshi-accused

no.14 cannot be relied upon. The applicant had purchased property

vide Sale deed dated 25.7.2014. She applied for loan under the

Employees Welfare Scheme to the tune of Rs.20 lacs.The loan was

sanctioned by the Board of Directors on 17.4.2015. The loan had to

be re-paid in instalments.The applicant has re-paid about 13

instalments which were deducted from her salary.It is submitted that

the prosecution is relying upon the statement of Dattatraya Zombde

wherein he has alleged that applicant was not entitled for grant of

cr.ba.1332.17

loan. Learned counsel relied upon the contents of the statement of

Dattatraya Zombde. Statement relating to the loan being advanced

to Dattatray Zombde and various other persons was also brought to

the notice of the Court. Loan was sanctioned to Dattatray Zombde

from time to time. It is submitted that several employees were

benefitted by the loan facility under the Employees Welfare Scheme.

Dattatraya Zombde has availed loan of Rs.15,50,000/- duirng the

period from 19.5.2014 to 19.9.2014. Loan was sanctioned even to

the peon of the Office to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. The aforesaid facts

are appearing in the documents annexed to the application. The

learned counsel further submitted that it is alleged by the

prosecution that in the transaction between the Corporation and

Pawandeep Kohli Rs.4 crores were transferred from the account of

the Corporation to Joshaba Madyavarthi Grahak Sahakari Sanstha

and from said Sanstha to the account of Tejinder Kaur Kohli who is

the mother of Pawandeep Kolhi and theafter to Mahendra

Enterprises to that of the applicant. The counsel relied upon the

copy of the bank account of Joshaba Madyavarthi Grahak Sahakari

cr.ba.1332.17

Sanstha and submitted that a perusal of the same would reveal that

an amount of Rs.4 crores has been transferred from the account of

the Corporation on 15.7.2014 by RTGS to Joshaba Madyavarthi

Grahak Sahakari Sanstha. It is submitted that a perusal of the bank

statement of Tejinder Kohli which is also annexed to the application

and which forms part of the supplementary charge sheet, it appears

that on 15.7.2014 Rs.4 crores has been received by Tejinder Kaur

Kohli in her account from Joshaba Madyavarthi Grahak Sahakari

Sanstha by RTGS.The statement further reveals that during the

period from 9.8.2014 to 15.9.2015 an amount of Rs.4 crores has

been transferred to various accounts but, not to the account of the

applicant. On 12.8.2015 Tejinder Kaur Kohli has transferred the

amount to Pavandeep Kohli. It is submitted that the applicant has

purchased the plot on 25.7.2014 and therefore it is clear that from

the amount of Rs.4 crores transferred to the account of Tejinder Kaur

Kohli the applicant has not been benefitted. It is further submitted

that no amount was transferred from the bank account of Tejinder

Kaur Kohli to Pawandeep Kohli before 25.7.2014 i.e. date of

cr.ba.1332.17

purchase of plot by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant

had raised a friendly loan of Rs.20 lacs from Pawandeep Kohli of

Mahendra Enterprises which has its bank account with Axis Bank.

Statement of the said bank account is part of the said supplementary

charge sheet. The applicant has a bank account with Bank of

Maharashtra. The applicant has received Rs.20 lacs loan from the

Corporation on 21.7.2014 on the same day an amount of Rs.21 lacs

has been received from Mahendra Enterprises and Rs. 10 lacs from

Trimurthi Dhaba of Yogesh Shinde and on 22.7.2014 the applicant

has transferred Rs.51 lacs to the vendor Rajesh Bhattad by RTGS

which is evident from the statement of the bank account of the

applicant which also forms part of the charge sheet.It is therefore,

submitted that neither Tejinder Kaur Kohli had transferred Rs.21 lacs

to the account of Mahendra Enterprises and to the applicant and the

property was purchased much before Pawandeep Kohli received the

amount from Tejinder Kaur Kohli. It is therefore, submitted that the

applicant at no stage had received any amount allegedly transferred

from the Corporation account to the account of Tejinder Kaur Kohli.

cr.ba.1332.17

It is submitted that the applicant had obtained a friendly loan of

Rs.10 lacs from Yogesh Shinde which is apparent from the bank

account statement. On 21.7.2014 the said amount was deposited in

cash. Rs.10 lacs were transferred to the applicant's account by RTGS.

Statement of the said witness was recorded wherein he has not

stated that the amount was secured from the main accused or from

the Corporation or any society. The supplementary statement of

Yogesh Shinde was recorded which gave details as to how he has

collected the amount and given loan to the applicant. It is submitted

that the said loan amount cannot be attributed to be tainted. The

property was purchased from Rajesh Bhattad. It is submitted that he

has stated in his statement that the property was sold to the

applicant for Rs.51 lacs. Reference is also made to the bank

statement of Rajesh Bhattad. It is therefore, submitted that on a

perusal of the bank account statement of Joshaba Madyavarthi

Grahak Sahakari Sanstha, Tejinder Kaur Kohli, Mahendra

Enterprises, Rajesh Bhattad and bank statement of the applicant, it

is clear that no amount of the Corporation has come to her bank

cr.ba.1332.17

account. Hence, there is no substance in the allegation that the

applicant is the beneficiary of the amounts transferred from the

Corporation.

8. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted

that the Sale Deed mentioned the receipt of Rs.51 lacs by RTGS

from the applicant towards consideration of the plot. The certificate

and documents annexed to the Sale Deed are registered. The vendor

had a absolute title. The stamp duty was paid by the applicant in

accordance with provisions of law. No Objection Certificate was

issued by CIDCO at the instance of Rajesh Bhattad and applicant as

made by Rajesh Bhattad to CIDCO in that regard. The Sale Deed was

executed between the parties and the transactions were carried out

through the bank account of the applicant. At the time of registration

of the property as per Ready Reckoner the payment with respect to

purchase of the land was made. It is further submitted that the

Legislature has enacted Criminal Law Ordinance, 1944. Section 3

deals with attachment of tainted properties of Public Servants. In

cr.ba.1332.17

absence of application of provision of section 3 (3) of the

Ordinance,1944 the exercise made by the prosecution making

condition precedent for the deposit of the alleged amount in the

Court in lieu of bail is also without jurisdiction. It is submitted that

the applicant has not tempered with the Resolutions. She has made

available xerox copies of the Resolutions which were available in the

Department. It is further submitted that in respect of the amounts

transferred to the other concerns on the basis of the Resolutions,

Suhas Dumbre, Kiran Contractor and Vyomesh Shah were granted

bail. Vyomesh Shah filed an undertaking that he will deposit Rs.59

crores in Court on behalf of accused nos.1 to 3. It is submitted that

Vyomesh Shah and others had preferred a Writ Petition No.4197 of

2016 before the Division Bench of this Court in which an order was

passed on 20.1.2017 wherein interim relief was granted and further

deposits as per condition nos. 2 (i) 2 (ii) and 2 (iii) of the said order

are stayed. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in

custody since the date of her arrest. Prior to surrender of the

applicant, she was granted interim protection during the pendency of

cr.ba.1332.17

her Anticipatory Bail Application. Interim protection was in force for

a period of about one year. She has co-operated with the

investigation. The matter relates to documents which are in

possession of the investigating machinery. Statement of various

witnesses were recorded and charge sheet is filed. The applicant is a

woman and permanent resident of Mumbai. The trial may not

commence immediately. It is therefore, submitted that the applicant

may be granted bail.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the

decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2017

which relates to speedy trial and deals with the issue of prisoners

continuing in custody without trial on account of delay in trial.

10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State vehemently opposed the application for bail.It is submitted that

the applicant is involved in the crime. There is ample evidence

against the applicant establishing her participation in the crime. It is

cr.ba.1332.17

submitted that the applicant had acted in connivance with the co-

accused. The applicant's complicity with other accused is also

established from the fact that favours were shown to the applicant.

The appointment of the applicant was irregular. Her promotion from

time to time were also irrregular. Benefits were accrued to the

applicant as she was a party to the conspiracy with other accused. It

is submitted that the applicant has purchased a plot of land at

Aurangabad and she was not entitled for loan. An amount of Rs.20

lacs was sanctioned to the applicant as a loan by the Corporation.

The co-accused has advanced cash facility to the applicant for

purchasing the said plot of land. The amount of Rs.21 lacs has been

transferred from the account of Pawandeep Kohli and Tejinder Kaur

Kohli to the applicant's account. It is submitted that the said amount

was tained money. Funds of the Corporation was transferred to the

account of the aforesaid persons which was then transferred to the

applicant. There is no explanation as to why Yogesh Shinde has

parted with the amount of Rs.10 lacs to the applicant. It is further

submitted that vital Resolutions viz Nos.83 and 84 are missing from

cr.ba.1332.17

the Department. The said Resolutions were in possession of the

applicant and deliberately the same were destroyed. It is submitted

that the applicant is a party to the forgery of documents and has

acted in connivance with other accused. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor relied upon the statement of various persons viz Jayesh

Joshi, Yogesh Shinde, Vandana Rane, Avinash Mandke,Dattatraya

Zombade and various other witnesses which according to him shows

the complicity of the applicant in the said crime. It is submitted that

statement of the witnessses indicate that the applicant was supposed

to hand over copies of the Resolutions although she had promised do

so. She did not have any Resolutions which shows that the same

were destroyed or that she is responsible for missing the said

documents. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in the

preparation of the agenda to facilitate the transactions. It is

submitted that loans were transferred to M/s Maitri Sugar and

Trading Pvt.Ltd and other concerns referred to herein above.

Although the said accused are released on bail the orders were based

on undertakings given by said accused upon deposit of the said

cr.ba.1332.17

amount. He relied upon statement of Shri Dhruv Kumar Mistry

recorded on 17.12.2015.

11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted

that the Santosh Ingale Managing Director of the Corporation on the

recommendations of the accused-Ramesh Kadam appointed the

applicant as a Law Officer by violating the rules and within a span of

two years the applicant was promoted from the post of clerk to that

of a Law Officer. The said appointment was made for seeking her

assistance in the company. He relied upon the statement of Dattaraya

Zombade in support of the said submissions. It is submitted that as

submitted above, the applicant has tampered with the documents

and has misplaced Resolution bearing nos.83 and 84. The original

proceeding Book Nos.83 and 84 should have been made available

and it was duty of the applicant to produce the same before the

Investigating agency. It is further submitted that by inserting

Resolution Nos.83/14/4,84/13 orders were passed in favour of M/s

Maitri Trading Pvt.Ltd, Mahalaxmi Dughah Utpadak Sahakari

cr.ba.1332.17

Sanstha and Prathamesh Vahatuk Sahakari Sanstha sanctioning

funds worth Rs.36.63 lacs of the Corporation. It is submitted that the

Resolutions were forged as there is no subject on the agenda or there

is any circulation note in the Office of the Corporation or there is no

proposal. There is no Office noting to recommend loan to the

societies and there was no quorum of the meeting as proxy.Reliance

placed on statement of Zombade recorded on 19.6.2016 wherein he

has stated that applicant was not eligible to obtain loan and without

considering seniority loan was sanctioned to her. He has also stated

that it was responsibilityof applicant to handle office documents and

inspite of that she has deliberately misplaced the vital documents of

Corporation. He has also stated that the co-accused had appointed

her on important post bypassing seniority. It is submitted that there

is no explanation on the part of the applicant that Yogesh Shinde had

given amount of Rs.10 lacs as well as Rs.2,75,000/- towards

registration charges to the applicant. As per rules and bye laws, the

applicant did not fulfil the criteria for the loan. The loan was to be

sanctioned/disbursed only on completion of five years. Tejinder Kaur

cr.ba.1332.17

Kohli had paid an amount of Rs.20 lacs by RTGS to the applicant and

that an amount of Rs.4 crores was transferred from the account of

Joshaba Madhyavarti Grahak Sahakari Sanstha to the account of

Tejinder Kaur Kohli the mother of Pawandeep Kohli which was

transferred to the account of the applicant. Learned Special

Prosecutor also filed affidavit along with some documents to oppose

the grant of bail.

12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the

applicant is involved in the offence of misappropriation of funds.

This is a serious economic offence.The applicant is not entitled for

bail. He has relied upon several decisions in support of his argument

that bail should not be granted to the applicant.

13. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

(i) Himanshu Chandravadan Desai & ors vs State of Gujrat 2005 (8) Supreme page 92.

(ii) Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs State of Maharashtra (2013) O Cr.L.J.1625;

cr.ba.1332.17

(iii) Pradeep S/o Gyanchand Raisoni vs State of Maharashtra (2012) ALLMR (Cri) 3075);

(iv) Gopiikishan S/o Madhukar Mujaria vs State of Maharashtra 2009 O All MR (Cri) 756;

(v) The State vs Captain Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 253;

(vi) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & anr AIR 2004 SC 1866;

          (vii)         State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   &   ors   vs.Shri   Ram
          Singh AIR  2000 SC 870.

14. It is submitted that in all these aforesaid decisions,

Courts from time to time has observed that bail should not be

granted in serious offences. It is also observed that longer term in

custody and trial not likely to be concluded is no ground for grant of

bail. The Court considered the issue of corruption in civilised society

as a disease which factor has to be taken into consideration while

considering grant of bail. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the

application preferred by the applicant may be rejected.

15. I have gone through the entire charge sheet, the

cr.ba.1332.17

documents on record and heard the submissions as aforesaid

advanced by learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned

Special Public Prosecutor.

16. The First Information Report was registered on

18.7.2015.The applicant had surrendered to custody on 21.12.2016.

The charge sheet against the accused was filed on 7.3.2017.The

applicant is an Arts graduate and has also completed her post-

graduation in law. In the Resolution of 75 th Board meeting dated

10.7.2012 it was resolved that the applicant and another be

confirmed to the post of Clerk. The Chairman of the Corporation was

Babasaheb Gokhale, the Managing Director was Santosh Ingale and

the independent Goverment appointed Director was Smt.S.R.Chavan-

an IAS Officer. The applicant was appointed as Assistant Deputy

Manager-Administration from the N.T. category by the Departmental

Notification dated 10.7.2014.The applicant's appointment was

processed for being promoted to the post of Law Officer and she was

promoted to the said post from 11.8.2014. She was given additional

cr.ba.1332.17

charge to the post of Deputy General Manager (Administration) vide

resuming letter dated 1.9.2014. According to the prosecution, the

applicant had participated in implementing Resolution Nos.83/14/4

and 84/13 for granting loans to M/s Maitri Sugar and Trading

Pvt.Ltd Mahalaxmi Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha,Solapur and

Prathamesh Magaswargiya Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha. The amounts

which has been referred to hereinabove were transferred to the said

concerned firm from the Corporation. It is pertinent to note that the

person to whom the said benefit was accrued were arrested viz

accused nos.7,8,9 namely Vyomesh Shah, Kiran Contractor and

Suhas Dumbre. Accused no.7 filed an undertaking in the Special

Court that he will deposit the amount of Rs.59 crores on behalf of all

three accused and on the basis of the said undertaking they were

granted bail. The prosecution gave no objection for grant of bail. It is

also noted that the amount transferred in favour of Total Earth

Movers and Sterling Motors as well as Prathamesh Magasvargiya

Vahatuk Sahakari Sanstha. Vehicles purchased were seized.The

concerned accused-Umesh Kadam was released on anticipatory bail.

cr.ba.1332.17

Similarly, accused concerning transfer of amount to Mahalaxmi

Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha, Smt Nakusa Kadam and Smt

Laxmi Lokhande who were Directors of Mahalaxmi Dugdha Utpadak

Sahakari Sanstha, Solapur were also released on bail. Statement of

witnesses Vandana Rane, Avinash Mandke and Dilip Khude are

relied upon by the prosecution which forms part of the charge sheet.

The said witnesses do not refer to involvement of the applicant in

connection with the crime. Dilip Khude has stated that the agenda is

numbered by high-ranking Officers. The statement of Vandana Rane

was recorded oni 21.7.2015 in great detail. She has not stated

anything adverse against the applicant. Her statement was also

recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure on

14.10.2015. Statement of Avinash Mandke was recorded on

7.8.2014. He has furnished the details about working, decisions of

Corporationi. Supplementary statement of said witness was recorded

on 7.9.2015, which was followed by statement under section 164

Code of Criminal Procedure recorded on 23.09.2015. He does not

refer to the alleged acts attributed to the applicant. Final decision

cr.ba.1332.17

on the agenda is taken by the Managing Director and any decision

taken at the Board meeting can be incorporated with the permission

of the Chairman. Xerox copies of the Resolutions were provided to

the Investigating authorities. It appears that minutes are recorded

after meetings of the Board are over and it is difficult to manipulate

the same as the minutes are recorded after certification of the

Managing Director and the agenda is discussed by the administrative

heads. The applicant was the Administrative Officer. There is

nothing to show that she had any authority or power with respect to

the decision-making. It is pertinent to note that the plot of land was

purchased by the applicant for a consideration of Rs.51 lacs. Out of

that Rs.20 lacs was obtained as a loan and Rs.21 lacs was secured

from Mahindra Enterprises of which Pawandeep Kohli was the

Proprietor and Rs.10 lacs was secured from Yogesh Shinde and the

applicant has been paying instalments in relation to the loans

obtained from the Corporation. Statement of Yogesh Shinde is

recorded but, he has not given explanation as to how he parted with

the amount. The bank statement of the said persons were recorded

cr.ba.1332.17

during investigation. Statement of Jayesh Joshi has been referred to

by the prosecution which has been referred to by the accused

subsequently. The applicant had applied for a loan under the

Employees Welfare Scheme and the same was sanctioned to her by

the Board on 17.4.2017. The amount is to be repaid by way of

instalments which is in process. From the statement of Suhas

Dumbre it appears that the loan facility was also given to him on

several occasions. The benefit of the loan was also advanced to

various other persons and therefore it cannot be said only the

applicant was given the loan facility. On perusal of the statement of

Joshaba Madhyavarthi Grahak Sahakari Sanstha an amount of Rs.4

crores has been transferred from the account of the Corporation from

15.7.2014 by RTGS. Statement of Tejinder Kaur Kohli indicate that

on 15.7.2014 Rs.4 crores has been received by her from Joshaba

Madhyavarthi Grahak Sahakari Sanstha by RTGS. The statement

also indicate that the amounts were transferred to various accounts.

On 12.8.2014 Tejinder Kaur Kohli has transferred Rs.4.5 crores to

Pawandeep Kohli. However, the applicant has purchased a plot of

cr.ba.1332.17

land on 25.7.2014. Thus, from the account of Rs.4 crores transferred

to the account of Tejinder Kaur Kohli, no benefit was accrued to the

applicant since no amount was transferred from the bank account of

Tejinder Kaur Kohli to Pawandeep Kohli before 25.7.2014. The

applicant received a loan of Rs.21 lacs by RTGS from Tejinder Kaur

Kohli mother of Pawandeep Kolhi who is the Proprietor of Mahendra

Enterprises. The applicant holds account with Bank of Maharashtra.

It is recorded that on 21.10.2014 she has received Rs.20 lacs from

the Corporation. On 21.6.2014 an amount of Rs.21 lacs was received

from Mahendra Enterprises and Rs.10 lacs was received from

Trimurty Dhaba of Yogesh Shinde. On 22.7.2014 an amount of Rs.51

lacs was transferred to the vendor Rajesh Bhattad. There is no

substance in the submission that the applicant misappropriated the

amount from the account of the Corporation and it has not been

transferred to the account of the applicant. The statement of

Dattatray Zombade was recorded on 5.11.2015. The said statement

do not attribute any role to applicant in alleged crime. He has

referred to resolution regarding grant of loan to Mahalaxmi Dugdha

cr.ba.1332.17

Sahakari Sanstha and identified signatures of persons appearing

therein. He also referred to Resolution to grant loan to Maitri Sugar

and stated that it is signed by Officers and staff of

Corporation.Reference is also made to Resolution granting amount to

Mahindra Enterprises and Prathamesh Vahatuk Sahakari Sanstha

and identified signatures. It is not stated that applicant is involved in

preparing the said documents. The signatures appearing therein

were apparently genuine. However, in his statement dated 19.6.2016

he has stated that loan was sanctioned to applicant without

considering seniority. It is also stated that she was supposed to

handle the documents of office but the same were deliberately

misplaced. The statement is made belatedly. There is no evidence to

show that applicant is supposed to handle documents except his bald

statement.

17. In any case, the entire transactions are investigated and

records are in the custody of the Investigating agency. The said Sale

Deed is registered. The stamp duty was paid. Statement of

cr.ba.1332.17

Pawandeep Kohli is recorded. Consideration was transferred by

RTGS. The registration was done in accordance with Ready

Reckoner. There is no room to doubt the genuineness of the said

transaction. The Vendor-Rajesh Bhattad in his statement has stated

that the property was sold by him for a consideration of Rs.51 lacs.

Several other persons are granted bail. Apparently the transactions

are explained by the applicant. She has been in custody from the

date of her arrest i.e. 21.12.2016. The investigation is completed as

against applicant and charge sheet has been filed.

18. It is apparent that so far as six supplementary charge

sheets are filed. It is the prosecution case itself that investigation is

still going on vide section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure,1973. The prosecution has collected voluminous

documents. As stated above, there are several charge sheets. It is not

clear as to when entire investigation would be completed and the

trial would commence.The applicant is a woman and there are no

chances that she will abscond. She is having property in Mumbai and

cr.ba.1332.17

permanent resident of Mumbai. She was on interim anticipatory bail

for a period of one year and has co-operated with the investigation at

that point of time. She is in custody from 21.12.2016. Further

detention of the applicant is not neecssary as the charge sheet is

already filed. The applicant has been paying instalments towards the

loan obtained by her. The investigating agency can act in accordance

with Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 in relation to the

seizure of the property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Sanjay Chandra vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2012

Cr.L.J.702 has observed that it is not in interest of justice that

accused should be in jail for indefinite period.

19. I have given anxious consideration to the decisions

relied upon by the Special Public Prosecutor. However, taking into

consideration the aforesaid circumstances, bail can be granted to the

applicant. Hence, following order :

O R D E R

(i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with CR No.336 of 2015 registered at Dahisar

cr.ba.1332.17

Police Station, Mumbai and presently subject matter of Special Case No.104 of 2015 @ Special Case No.18 of 2017 pending before the Special Court, Mumbai, on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

(ii) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer of State CID, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai once a month on every first Saturday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.till further orders;

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

(iv) The applicant shall not create any third party interests in respect to the subject property purchased by the applicant which is situated at Aurangabad;

(v) The applicant shall submit her passport forthwith to the investigating Officer of State CID, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai;

(vi) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for a period of four weeks in lieu of surety;

(vii) It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for considering the application for bail and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same at the time of trial.

          (viii)           The bail application is disposed of.      


                                                             {PRAKASH D. NAIK}