Bombay High Court
Aniruddha Krushna Zalte And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 August, 2021
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/7 10 ABA-1997-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1997 OF 2021
Aniruddha Krushna Zalte & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2062 OF 2021
Arun Bhagwan Sawant .. Applicant/
Intervenor
In the Matter Between :-
Aniruddha Krushna Zalte & Ors. .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr.Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ritesh Thobde for
the Applicants.
Mr.Priyal G. Sarda for the Intervenor.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the State.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2021
P.C:-
1. Applicant No.1 is a President whereas applicant Nos.2, 4,
5 and 7 are women trustees of Vidyamandir Sanstha, Barshi
and all of them are senior citizens, barring applicant Nos.3 and
5. They are arraigned as accused in C.R.No.239 of 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/7 10 ABA-1997-21.doc
registered with Vairag Police Station, District Solapur,
invoking the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, "IPC") at the instance of the complainant, who has fled
an application for intervention and is represented by learned
counsel Mr.Priyal Sarda.
2. The offence came to be registered on an order passed by
the learned J.M.F.C., Barshi on 20/05/2021, on a complaint
being instituted by the intervenor on 25/02/2021. Learned
Magistrate, while directing the investigation at the instance of
the Vairag Police Station, has observed as under :-
"It is alleged by applicant, that, in furtherance of their
common intention, non-applicants achieved economic gain
by recruiting persons on the basis of minority status which
was obtained by deceiving the government. Allegations also
relate to creating bogus documents to acquire minority
status. Allegations are of serious nature. The copy of
notary list of current members at Exh.3/9 is fled by
applicant and applicant has alleged the involvement of all
non-applicants. Applicant has stated in application that
Kashinath Ujankar and Narsinh Pimparkar are deceased.
There are allegations of cheating and forgery which are
cognizable offences. Whether the documents submitted to
acquire minority status are bogus or not, who has created
the alleged bogus certifcates including the alleged bogus
signatures and stamps on the certifcates needs to be
investigated. Moreover, allegations as to recruitment policy
and donations also needs to be investigated. Allegations are
of such nature that, assistance of police is necessary for
investigation to reveal factual position by collecting further
evidence. It is therefore, appropriate to direct investigation
as per section 156(3) of Cr.P.C."
3. Pursuant to this order, the subject FIR is registered and
the applicants are apprehending their arrest in the said C.R.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/7 10 ABA-1997-21.doc
4. Learned senior counsel Mr.Mohite appearing for the
applicants has invited my attention to the FIR, which can be
encapsulated to the effect that all the accused persons are the
trustees of Vidyamandir Sanstha, Taluka Barshi, District
Solapur, which is established in the year 1954. When the
Trust was registered, it comprised of persons from different
castes and religions and it did not possess minority status.
However, in order to avail the beneft of recruiting the persons
from Jain community, an application came to be preferred to
the Minority Development Department of the State
Government, seeking a minority status and the complainant
allege that for procuring the said status, certain documents
were forged by the accused persons and the forgery that is
alleged is that three of the trustees, who belonged to Brahmin
community and one trustee, who is a Maratha, were shown as
belonging to Jain community by fabricating the documents
from school register. Further, it is alleged that it was projected
before the State Government that more than 50% persons in
Trust belong to Jain community and based on this projection,
the State Government conferred minority status on
Vidyamandir Sanstha w.e.f. 11/04/2016.
5. It is further alleged that by availing the minority status,
four teachers came to be appointed, who are named in the
complaint and it is alleged that they were paid salary of
Rs.50,000/- per month from April 2018 to January 2019 and
total amount of Rs.99,00,000/- is expended towards their
salary. The allegation is that this has caused loss to the
fnancial exchequer of the Government. Another accusation
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/7 10 ABA-1997-21.doc
levelled is that while recruiting these persons, the present
applicants had obtained donation of Rs.15 to 20 lakhs.
This is the precise allegation, which resulted in
registration of the crime by invoking Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. Mr.Mohite, learned senior counsel, has invited my
attention to the two vital documents, frst being the
withdrawal of the minority status conferred on the Trust by
the Minority Development Department of the State
Government by an order dated 01/09/2018. The said order
record that the status which was conferred on the said Trust
was obtained by misleading the Government and by producing
some fraudulent documents. It is also recorded in the said
order that the projection given to the effect that 50% of the
trustees belong to Jain community is also incorrect and that is
why the State Government withdrew its earlier order dated
11/04/2016 and resultantly, the minority status conferred on
the Trust stood withdrawn from the said date.
As far as the allegation qua the appointment of four
employees is concerned, though it is submitted and also
recorded by the learned Magistrate that the appointments
were effected, on the Trust being conferred with the minority
status, the said allegation and observation of the learned
Magistrate appear to be prima facie incorrect as the date of
appointment of all the four candidates is prior to conferring of
minority status and they have been appointed on various dates
in the year 2013 and in the year 2014, when grant was made
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/7 10 ABA-1997-21.doc
admissible, they have been receiving the salary from the grant
of the State Government. The second document to which the
learned senior counsel has invited my attention is an order
passed by this Court in a Writ Petition instituted by all the four
employees named in the complaint, where the Division Bench
by order dated 06/12/2017, quashed and set aside the order
passed by the Education Offcer and by the judgment delivered
by this Court, the order of the Education Offcer staying his
own orders granting approval to the appointments of the
petitioners, is quashed and set aside. The appointment of
these teachers, which is effected prior to the conferment of the
minority status, has been confrmed by this Court and the
allegation that taking advantage of the minority status, the
aforesaid four employees are appointed, prima facie, appears
to be incorrect.
7. As far as the allegation of forgery, which forms the part
of the complaint is concerned, the minority status which is
granted by the State Government, is withdrawn by the State
Government itself by taking note of the complaint made to it
and the fact that status was obtained by playing a fraud being
brought to its notice. In such circumstances, the Trust no
longer enjoys the minority status and it was always open for
the State Government to direct initiation of criminal
proceedings against those, who played a fraud and preferred
an application before the State Government, but it restrained
itself from doing so. Moreover who has played fraud is also not
deciphered in the order of the State Government.
M.M.Salgaonkar
6/7 10 ABA-1997-21.doc
Much water has fown after the minority status has been
withdrawn and it is not that the investigation into allegations
of fraud or forgery cannot continue after three years and it is
always open to unearth the fraud which is alleged since fraud
vitiates any action, but for the said purpose, custodial
interrogation of the applicants, in my considered opinion, is
not warranted and the applicants are entitled to be released on
bail in the event of their arrest, subject to the stipulation that
they shall co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the
following order.
: ORDER :
(a) The application is allowed.
(b) In the event of arrest in C.R.No.239 of 2021
registered with Vairag Police Station, District Solapur,
Applicant No.1-Aniruddha Krushna Zalte, Applicant
No.2-Mrunal Jayant Bhumkar, Applicant No.3-Bhushan
Jayant Bhumkar, Applicant No.4-Prerna Mrunal
Bhumkar, Applicant No.5-Leena Bhushan Bhumkar,
Applicant No.6-Vijaykumar Raghunath Bandewar and
Applicant No.7-Suvarna Jayant Bhumkar shall be
released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of
Rs.25,000/- each, with one or two sureties of the like
amount.
(c) The applicants shall report to the concerned police
station as and when called for.
(d) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from
M.M.Salgaonkar
7/7 10 ABA-1997-21.doc
disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Offcer and
shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
8. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove
are prima facie in nature and limited for the purpose of
adjudication of the present application and have no baring on
the merits of the matter.
9. Interim Application No.2062 of 2021 stands disposed of
accordingly.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
