Bombay High Court
Navnath Narayan Gole vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 June, 2021
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1726 OF 2021
Vimal Umeshchandra Jha .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
INTERVENTION APPLICATION NO.1519 OF 2021
Navnath Narayan Gole .... Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Vimal Umeshchandra Jha .... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. Law Global Advocate, Advocate for
Applicant.
• Smt.J.S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent.
• Mr.Hemant Ingle i/b. Sugat P. Ingle, Advocate for Intervenor.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 16th JUNE, 2021
(Through video conferencing)
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No.137/2021 registered with Kharghar
Nesarikar
2 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under sections 323, 364-A, 365,
387, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.Subhash Jha, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Smt.J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State and
Mr.Hemant Ingle, learned counsel for the Intervenor.
3. The Applicant was arrested on 05/04/2021 in the early
morning hours. However, there is a dispute as to exactly on
which date he was arrested. According to the Applicant, he was
taken in custody in the evening of 03/04/2021 and he was
illegally detained on 04/04/2021.
4. The investigation is still in progress. The Applicant has
preferred Writ Petition No.1840 of 2021 before the Division
Bench of this Court, which is still pending. Vide order dated
19/05/2021, the investigation was transferred to State CID. This
order was passed by the Division Bench in that Writ Petition.
Mr.Jha learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the said
Writ Petition is still pending before Division Bench of this Court.
3 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
5. The FIR is lodged by the first informant Navnath
Narayan Gole. He has stated that he has three companies in the
name of Ishakrupa Shipping Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Gurukrupa
Metal Mart and Aryan Mines and Minerals. He is the owner of
those companies. Those companies are in the business of import
and export. They are also looking after customs clearance. It is
mentioned in the FIR, that, in November 2020, he got
acquainted with the present Applicant, who was an Advocate.
The Applicant is specialized in DRI and NCB cases. In May 2020,
the owners of M/s J.M. Industry had lodged complaint against
the informant, his wife and two staff members at MIDC police
station, Ahmednagar vide C.R. No.329/2020 u/s 420, 120-A of
IPC. The informant was arrested on 27/01/2021 in that
connection, by EOW, Ahmednagar. The informant's wife and
staff members were granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on 29/01/2021. After her release, the informant's wife met the
present Applicant for getting the informant released on bail. The
FIR mentions that the Applicant demanded Rs.70,00,000/- by
4 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
way of his professional fees. The FIR mentions that she
transferred Rs.12,00,000/- in his favour through, RTGS,
Rs.50,00,000/- were paid in cash. On 03/03/2021, the
informant was granted bail by Sessions Court, Ahmednagar. The
informant was directed to report to MIDC police station every
Saturday. The informant used to attend that police station as
directed. It is mentioned in the FIR that on 07/03/2021, the
Applicant called him near his office. It is alleged that the
Applicant demanded Rs.3 Crores for helping him in getting bail.
It is alleged that, the Applicant threatened him that, if the
money was not paid, the informant would be arrested again.
The Applicant had allegedly threatened the informant that he
would be implicated falsely in false cases.
6. On 02/04/2021, the informant called the Applicant
telephonically at 09.30 p.m. The informant was asked by the
Applicant to meet at 10.00 p.m. at his Belapur office. The
informant went there in his Mini Cooper car. There, the
Applicant started quarreling with him and demanded Rs.3
5 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
Crores. In the meantime, three unknown persons came there.
They started supporting the Applicant. They were telling the
informant to pay that amount. The FIR further mentions that he
was forced to sit in a white Polo Volkswagen car. The Applicant
took the informant's Mini Cooper car. All of them went to Patel
Heritage, at 10.30 p.m. which was at sector 7, Kharghar. It is
alleged that the Applicant removed three mobile phones from
the informant and concealed them somewhere. All of them sat
together in Volkswagen car. Then the informant was taken to a
farm house at Karjat at midnight. It is alleged that at that place,
those three unknown persons beat him with hands and kicks.
They were demanding Rs.3 Crores. In the morning at about
06.00 a.m. the informant was taken to a farm house at Murbad.
They stopped there for half an hour. Thereafter he was forcibly
taken to a place known as Peruchi Baug, which was near Nashik.
They reached there at about 01.00 p.m. They had lunch there.
Again the Applicant demanded Rs.3 Crores. At about 02.30 p.m.
the informant was left there with those three unknown persons.
The Applicant went away. The FIR further mentions that, at
6 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
about 04.00 p.m., those three unknown persons took the
informant to Big Bazar at Nashik Road. There, the informant
made a request to an employee of Big Bazar to give him mobile
phone, so that he could call his wife. The informant then gave
two missed calls to his wife and one call to his wife's brother
Nitin. The unknown persons then took him outside Big Bazar. It
is alleged that the informant was given blows with a pen on his
shoulder and thigh. At about 05.00 p.m. he was taken to Natural
Health Farm House at Deolali. There he was made to swim in
the swimming pool. At about 09.00 p.m. one of them received a
phone call. The phone call was kept on speaker. The informant
heard the conversation. It was between the Applicant and that
person. The Applicant was telling that person that, the Applicant
was called to Kharghar police station as the informant's family
had lodged complaint with Kharghar police station about the
informant's missing from his house. After that, those three
unknown persons got scared and the informant was dropped at
Dwarka Chowk in Nashik and was left there. Those three
unknown persons then went away in their Volkswagen car. The
7 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
informant then came to Mumbai. He took treatment from his
family doctor. After that, he came to police station to give his
complaint, which was taken at 03.15 a.m. on 05/04/2021.
7. Mr.Jha, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted
that from 03/04/2021 in the evening the Applicant was
detained illegally at Kharghar police station. The FIR was lodged
at odd hours i.e. at 03.15 a.m. in the early morning on
05/04/2021. The Applicant was shown arrested at 04.39 a.m.
on 05/04/2021. He submitted that, his entire detention on
03/04/2021 and 04/04/2021 was illegal. He was not produced
before Magistrate within 24 hours and therefore on that ground
alone, the Applicant deserves to be released on bail as he was
illegally detained.
8. Mr.Jha submitted that prosecution case is doubted by
the Division Bench and therefore the case was transferred to
State CID for investigation. He relied on the case of Ram Govind
Upadhyay Vs. Sadarshan Singh and Ors. as reported in AIR
2002 SCC 1475.
8 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
In that judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus;
"Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall
have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and
in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of
events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."
9. Mr.Jha relied on a few orders to contend that illegal
detention of an accused is a ground for releasing him on bail.
For that purpose he relied on an order passed by Single Judge of
this Court on 27/07/1993 in Criminal Bail Application No.1005
of 1993 passed in case of Suaibo Ibow Casamma Vs. Union of
India. He relied on few other judgments for the same
proposition. He further submitted that the story of prosecution is
absurd. The informant was allegedly taken to five different
places at some distance, where there were toll plazas, hotels and
shops and yet no grievance was made by the informant. He
submitted that, CCTV footage available at Murbad, Karjat etc., in
fact, will show that the informant was not put under pressure.
9 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
No weapon was used as per the allegations. There was no
reason why the informant did not try to seek help.
10. Mr.Jha invited my attention to a Memorandum of
Understanding entered into by the parties on 28/12/2020. It
was between informant as the flat owner and the Applicant as
the flat purchaser. In that MOU, the price of the flat was fixed at
Rs.80,00,000/-. There is mention of receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- by
the first informant. Mr.Jha submitted that this MOU is not
referred to in the FIR at all. He submitted that therefore
informant's case is not genuine. It is a concocted story to
pressurize the present Applicant. He submitted that
Rs.12,00,000/- were paid by wife of the informant to the
Applicant, but that was used for paying lawyer's fees, to meet
expenses for approaching Supreme Court and Court in
Ahmednagar for getting the informant and his wife released on
bail.
11. Learned APP Smt.Lohokare opposed this application.
She submitted that from 10/04/2021, the Applicant is in
10 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
hospital because he was infected with Covid-19. She submitted
that therefore practically he was not in jail at all. She submitted
that the investigation was transferred to State CID only on
19/05/2021 and therefore sufficient opportunity should be
given to the investigating agency. She submitted that 90 days are
getting over in first week of July and investigating agency will
have to file charge-sheet before that. Therefore the Applicant
should not be granted bail before filing of the charge-sheet. She
submitted that the other accused are still absconding.
Volkswagen vehicle is yet to be recovered. There is serious
apprehension of tampering of the witnesses. She submitted that
there is hairline skull fracture to the informant and therefore
matter has assumed seriousness.
12. Learned counsel for the informant also opposed this
application strongly. He submitted that the Division Bench of
this Court is examining question of illegal detention of the
Applicant and therefore that should not be a ground for his
release on bail. He submitted that MOU relied on Mr.Jha has no
11 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
relevance, as the allegations in the FIR are about the particular
incident of abduction. He submitted that if the Applicant is
released on bail, at this stage, there is a strong apprehension of
tampering with the evidence. He submitted that the Applicant
did not lodge protest because he was threatened. He submitted
that the MOU in question referred to by Mr.Jha was executed
under coercion. The MOU is signed by one of the co-accused
Pankaj as an witness. However Mr.Jha replied that it was some
other person.
13. I have considered these submissions and I have also
perused the investigation papers produced before me. The
medical certificate issued by District Hospital, Panvel shows that
there were three injuries. Two injuries were simple, which were
because of hard and blunt pointed object. However, there is one
contusion on high parietal region of dimension 3.5 x 3.5 cms.
That injury is described as grievous as it discloses hairline
fracture on right parietal bone. The probable weapon used is
mentioned as hard and blunt. Mrs.Lohokare strongly relied on
this medical certificate.
12 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
14. In this context, it is important to look at the allegations
in the FIR. The FIR was lodged by the informant after he had
composed himself and had sufficient time to gather his thoughts.
There is absolutely no mention of assault by any hard and blunt
weapon on his head. Other two injuries are attributed to blows
with a pen outside Big Bazar at Nashik. Therefore there is
sufficient doubt created about this particular head injury. Mr.Jha
submitted that there is no skull fracture. The injury certificate is
based on some investigation conducted in a private hospital and
therefore it is not reliable. At this stage, it is not proper to
observe anything further because the matter is still under
investigation. However, sufficient doubt his created about this
particular head injury, as there is absolutely no reference in the
FIR to such injury or any assault by hard and blunt weapon on
the informant's head.
15. From reading the FIR it appears that story mentioned
therein is difficult to believe. The informant was taken to various
places as follows;
13 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
(i) Patel Heritage, Sector 7, Kharghar,
(ii) Farm House at Karjat,
(iii) Farm House at Murbad,
(iv) Peruchi Baug at Nashik,
(v) Big Bazar, Nashik; and finally
(vi) Natural Health Farm House at Deolali.
At none of these places, the informant had raised any
alarm, had sought help or had lodged any protest. The
investigation papers contain statements of the care taker at Farm
House at Karjat. There she has described as to how five persons had
come there in two vehicles. The Applicant was one of them. They
had reached the farm house at about 03.30 a.m. on 03/04/2021.
They left the place at 07.30 a.m. This witness significantly has not
stated that the informant had resisted or had raised any alarm. Her
statement is supported by her husband Dinesh.
16. It is significant to note that, on the way to Nashik,
there are various toll plazas, where employees are always
available. At none of these places the informant had sought help
14 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
or raised alarm. The FIR does not say that the informant was
threatened at the point of any weapon. Therefore it is more
surprising that the informant had not sought any help. It also
does not stand to reason that an abducted victim would be taken
to a crowded place like Big Bazar.
17. There is statement of one Manish whose phone was
used by the informant to make a phone call from Big Bazar. This
witness has stated that two persons had taken away the
informant outside the mall after he had made phone calls. Here
again the informant had not told this witness anything further.
18. The investigation is still in progress. However, at least
some serious doubt is created about the occurrence of the
incident as narrated in the FIR. The allegation of the first
informant are that, the informant was abducted to pressurize
him to pay Rs.3 Crores. There are allegations that the
informant's wife had paid Rs.70,00,000/- to the Applicant.
However, this payment is not really supported by any written
15 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
document. Rs.12,00,000/- were transferred through RTGS.
However for payment of cash, there is no direct or indirect
evidence except the bare words of the informant and his wife.
The informant had sufficient time to gather his thoughts before
he gave his FIR. The dispute specifically mentions about amount
of Rs.3 Crores which the Applicant was allegedly demanding.
However, the informant has not made any reference to the MOU
regarding that flat, which also mentions receipt of
Rs.50,00,000/-, by the informant. It was not a small amount and
yet it was not mentioned in the FIR at all. Therefore there is
definitely something more to the entire story than meets the eye.
Suffice it to say at this stage, that reasonable doubt is created in
respect of the allegations.
19. The Applicant had suffered Covid-19 infection.
Admittedly his only one Kidney is functional. This fact is
admitted by the learned APP. Therefore merely because the
charge-sheet is likely to be filed in first week of July, I do not
feel it proper to allow the Applicant's detention during
16 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
remaining period till filing of the charge-sheet. The
apprehension of tampering with the evidence, can be taken care
of by imposing suitable conditions on the Applicant. Based on
above discussion, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicant.
20. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) In connection with C.R.No.137/2021
registered with Kharghar Police Station,
Navi Mumbai, the Applicant is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing PR
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Only) with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall deposit his passport
with the Investigating Officer before being
released on bail.
(iii) The Applicant shall not leave India without
prior permission of the trial Court.
17 / 17 15-BA-1726-21-IA-1519-21.odt
(iv) The Applicant shall attend the office of
investigating agency twice a week till filing
of the charge-sheet and then once every
month for a period of one year after filing
of the charge-sheet.
(v) In addition, the Applicant shall attend the
office of investigating agency as and when
called and shall cooperate with the
investigation.
(vi) The Applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence directly or indirectly.
(vii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(viii) In view of the disposal of the Bail
Application, the connected Intervention
Application is also disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
