Bombay High Court
Ganesh Anant Kadu vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... on 7 October, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 03-IA-3362-22-IN-APEAL-986-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3362 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.986 OF 2022
Ganesh Anant Kadu .... Appellant
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. .... Respondent
.......
• Mr. Priyatosh R. Tiwari i/b. Mr. A. M. Saraogi, Advocate for
Appellant.
• Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
• Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2022. The Applicant was the original
accused No.6 in CBI Special Case No.33 of 2018. At the
conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, CBI, vide his
Digitally
signed by
Judgment and Order dated 29/08/2022 convicted the Appellant
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE V
V NESARIKAR
for commission of offence punishable u/s 467 r/w 120-B of the
NESARIKAR Date:
2022.10.10
15:07:17
+0530
Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous
Nesarikar
2/4 03-IA-3362-22-IN-APEAL-986-22.odt
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and
in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for
three months.
2. The prosecution case is that the main accused i.e.
accused No.1 Vijay Chaudhary had used forged Kisan Vikas Patra
about more than 41 in number to obtain credit card facility from
Dena Bank and thereby gained wrongful amount to the tune of
Rs.50 lakhs. The case against the Applicant is that all these Kisan
Vikas Patra were prepared and printed on the computer and
printer of the Applicant. Learned Judge has discussed his role in
paragraph No.82 onwards. The main accused i.e. accused No.1
led the investigating agency to the house of the Applicant and
the computer along with the hard disk were seized.
3. Heard Mr. Priyatosh R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1 and Mr. S. R. Agarkar, learned APP for the State.
3/4 03-IA-3362-22-IN-APEAL-986-22.odt
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant is not a beneficiary of the amount involved in this
case. There is nothing to show that the Applicant was aware
that the accused No.1 was printing Kisan Vikas Patras from his
computer. He submitted that the sentence is short and the
Appeal is not likely to be decided within that short period. He
also relied on the two orders passed by this Court in connection
with the co-accused Prafulla Kumar Mishra and Rajesh
Dahanukar in their respective bail applications. They were co-
accused in the same trial and they were also granted bail
pending their Appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the CBI opposed this application.
He submitted that the very fact that the Kisan Vikas Patras were
printed from his printer, shows he had knowledge of what was
going on in his house. He has not informed about this to
anybody. Therefore he was aware of the conspiracy and about
the offence committed by the accused No.1.
4/4 03-IA-3362-22-IN-APEAL-986-22.odt
6. I have considered these submissions. The sentence
imposed on the Applicant is short. The Appeal is not likely to be
decided within that period. The Applicant was on bail during the
trial. He has not misused the same. The investigating agency has
not shown that the Applicant has gained anything unlawfully or
he was beneficiary in any manner. Considering all these aspects,
the Applicant can be granted bail pending the Appeal.
7. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) During pendency and final disposal of the
Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2022, the Applicant
is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Interim Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
