Bombay High Court
Rajendra @ Raju Jeevanlal Bamb vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 February, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 929-BA.95-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
929 BAIL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2023
RAJENDRA @ RAJU JEEVANLAL BAMB
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rajendrraa S. Deshmukkh (Senior
Counsel) i/b Mr. Abhishek R. Avachat, Mr. Gaurav Bafna,
Mr. Jarare Prasad Devidas.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. B. Narwade.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 21.02.2023
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant and
the learned APP for the respondent-State at length.
2. The accused has been arraigned as an accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467,
468, 384, 120-B of the IPC read with Section 39 of the
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and
Sections 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 of the Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
3. It has been alleged against the applicant that he has been
involved in a big business of illegal money lending. He had
created the false fixed deposit receipts. He has formed the
2 929-BA.95-23.odt
company which was not in existence. He was receiving the
deposits from the public and granting the loan to the needy
persons. He was receiving the gold as a security. Huge quantity
of gold was deposited in the bank locker. He exploited,
cheated and looted a common man. He was also forcing the
borrower to purchase LIC policy as a condition precedent. The
huge cash amount worth rupees Eighteen Crore and more,
thousands of fake fixed deposit receipts etc. have been seized.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would argue that
entire property allegedly involved in the crime including cash,
gold, documents etc. have been seized. The bank account of
the applicant have been frozen. The amount more than the
alleged money involved in the crime has been seized. Whereas
the illegal money lending business is concerned, it has been
seized with the concerned authority to deal with the offence.
The prosecution has no evidence that the applicant has played
a fraud. The provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes under the Act would not attract as the necessary
procedure has not been followed. Since the applicant has been
arraigned as an accused, all his enemies came together to show
him down. The applicant is a reputed person. He never denied
any of the depositors to return their money. He has been
3 929-BA.95-23.odt
arrested on 01.06.2022. The material investigation has been
completed. The charge sheet has also been submitted. He is
ready to abide by the conditions if any imposed while
enlarging him on bail.
5. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. He
would argue that the offence committed by the applicant
prima facie serious. Many poor persons have been looted. The
applicant has breached the provisions of the Maharashtra
Money Lending Act and the Banning of the Unregulated
Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. Since the main offence has been
registered against the applicant under Indian Penal Code, the
other provisions would automatically attract. Then, it would
not be essential to follow the procedure to take an action as
provided under the special enactment.
6. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the judgment of
this Court in Criminal Application No.5607 of 2013, dated
03.10.2018. He has serious objection to grant bail, as he has
expressed an apprehension of repeating the involvement of the
applicant in the similar crime. He has also vehemently argued
that the applicant is an influential person, he may tamper with
the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is guarded by the
4 929-BA.95-23.odt
politicians. Hence, to prevent the further loss to the society, he
may not be granted bail.
7. Certain procedure has been laid down in the Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 for taking the actions
against the so called accused. But, the view taken by this Court
in Criminal Application No.5607 of 2013 supports the
arguments of learned APP. However, there is no absolute bar
for granting bail. In the case at hand, a huge cash, gold, the
account books, the fixed deposit receipts have been recovered.
8. Though the learned APP would argue that the
investigation is still going on, the fact remains that the charge
sheet has been filed against the applicant. The investigation
shall not be endless. So far as Section 173 Sub Section 8 of the
Cr.P.C. is concerned, Investigating Officer has powers to submit
the further evidence, if discovered subsequent to the filing of
the charge sheet. Therefore, the Court does not find force in
the argument of the learned APP that investigation is still going
on. Hence, bail cannot be granted to the applicant.
9. The sole purpose of the detention of the applicant in a
crime is to prevent him or her from causing the disturbance in
the investigation, avoiding the tampering with the witnesses
and to disappear the evidence. In the light of this purpose of
5 929-BA.95-23.odt
detention of the applicant in any crime, the facts of the case
and the investigation has to be examined.
10. Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant
that he has been involved in the illegal business of money
lending and receiving the deposits in contravention of the
provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act,
2019. The so called amount involved in the crime has been
recovered. The necessary papers and gold etc. have also been
seized from the applicant. It appears that the interest of the
depositor and the borrower has been secured. The concerned
authority under the Maharashtra Money Lending Act is
empowered to deal with the issue. The seized money, gold and
other documents would not be returned to the applicant till the
conclusion of the trial. That may protect the interest of the
prosecution and depositors. As far as the apprehension of
tampering of the prosecution witnesses, stringent conditions
may be imposed.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Court is of the view that the further detention of the applicant
would serve no purpose. He deserves bail. Hence, the following
order :
6 929-BA.95-23.odt
ORDER
(i) Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) Applicant RAJENDRA @ RAJU JEEVANLAL BAMB
be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one or
two solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in
Crime No.117 of 2022, registered by Police Station
Azadnagar, District Dhule, for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465,
467, 468, 384, 120-B read with Section 34 of the
IPC, Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and Sections 21,
22, 23, 25, 26 of the Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 on the following
conditions :
(a) The applicant shall not influence any of the
witnesses himself or through any of person
in any mode or manner till the conclusion of
the trial.
(b) He shall attend the Police Station as and
when called by the police on written notice
for the further investigation, if any.
7 929-BA.95-23.odt
(c) He shall not tamper with the documents if
any, in his custody pertaining to the crime.
(d) The applicant shall not enter Dhule District
for six (6) months from the date of his
release except for attending the present trial.
(e) He shall not involve in similar crime.
(f) He shall surrender his passport to the
concerned Police Station.
(g) He shall give his residential address for the
above period and his mobile phone numbers
to the police.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
