Bombay High Court
Ravindra Pradiprao Desai vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Amit Borkar
2023:BHC-AS:20817
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 974 OF 2023
Chandso Ilai Kazi ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1281 OF 2023
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.974 OF 2023
Rohit Sudhir Otari ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.851 OF 2023
Abhijeet Sahebrao Shelke ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1226 OF 2023
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.851 OF 2023
Rohit Sudhir Otari ... Applicant
In the matter between
Abhijeet Sahebrao Shelke ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1025 OF 2023
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2023 05:32:58 :::
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
Ravindra Pradiprao Desai ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2103 OF 2023
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1025 OF 2023
Rohit Sudhir Otari ... Applicant
In the matter between
Ravindra Pradiprao Desai ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1037 OF 2023
Santosh Nandkumar Kumbhar ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2096 OF 2023
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1037 OF 2023
Rohit Sudhir Otari ... Applicant
In the matter between
Santosh Nandkumar Kumbhar ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1062 OF 2023
Pravin Vijay Patil ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
2
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2023 05:32:58 :::
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2104 OF 2023
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1062 OF 2023
Rohit Sudhir Otari ... Applicant
In the matter between
Pravin Vijay Patil ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1061 OF 2023
Santosh Ramesh Mandalik ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1071 OF 2023
Amit Arun Shinde ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1084 OF 2023
Deepak Baburao Mohite ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1081 OF 2023
Mahesh Bajirao Arekar-Patil ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1155 OF 2023
Dattatray Vishwanath Todkar ... Applicant
3
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2023 05:32:58 :::
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1360 OF 2023
Mahesh Balwant Shevale ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Sanjeev Kadam with Mr. Rushikesh Patil for the
applicant in ABA/974/2023, ABA/851/2023 &
ABA/1155/2023.
Mr. Arif Ali for the applicant in ABA/1037/2023.
Mr. Dnyanesh Patil with Mr. Aditya S. Raktade for the
applicant in ABA/1062/2023.
Mr. Pravin Vijay Patil for the applicant in
ABA/1061/2023.
Mr. Aniket U. Nikam with Mr. Piyush Toshnival & Mr.
Aashish Satpute with Mr. Amit Icham for the applicant
in ABA/1025/2023.
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi with Mr. Shriram Pingale with
Ms. Shraddha Sawant for the applicant/intervener.
Mr. Jayant Bardeskar for the applicant in
IA/1281/2023 & IA/1226/2023
Mr. Varun Thokal for the intervener in IA/2104/2023.
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi with Ms. Pravada Raut for the
intervener in IA/2103/2023.
Ms. Shraddha Sawant for the intervener.
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi with Adv. Paavani Chaddha
for the intervener in IA/2096/2023.
Mr. Shriram Pingle for the intervener.
Mr. Bhalchandra Shinde with Mr. Sandesh Jaibhai for
the applicant in ABA/1081/2023, ABA/1084/2023 &
ABA/1071/2023.
4
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2023 05:32:58 :::
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
Mr. Makrand M. Kale for the applicant in
ABA/1360/2023.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JULY 25, 2023
P.C.:
1. Apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.917 of 2022
registered on 25th November 2022 at Shahupuri Police Station for
offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999, the applicants are seeking relief under
section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. According to the prosecution, accused No.9 called the
informant to invest in the share market through companies [(i)
A.S. Traders and Developers LLP; (ii) Tradewings Solution Ltd.].
He was called to a seminar attended by around 1000 to 1200
people. All accused persons were present in the seminar portraying
themselves as either the directors of a company or persons
authorized on behalf of the companies. In the said seminar, it was
revealed that the companies had a cash-back plan of 36 months,
and thereafter, the entire principal amount shall be returned. The
second plan was the payment of Rs.30,000/- on investment of
Rs.10 Lakh for 36 months, and thereafter, the entire principal
amount shall be returned.
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
3. Additionally, foreign trips were promised on investment of
various amounts. Sri Lanka tour for investment of Rs.2,50,000/-;
Singapore tour for investment of Rs.5,00,000/-; Sri Lanka tour for
two persons, Singapore tour for one person and Activa vehicle on
an investment of Rs.7,00,000/-; Sri Lanka tour for six persons,
Singapore tour for three persons and four wheeler car upto Rs.6
lakh for investment of Rs.16,00,000/-; Sri Lanka tour for ten
persons, Singapore tour for five persons, and four wheeler vehicle
upto Rs.10 lakh for investment of Rs.27,00,000/-; Sri Lanka tour
for twenty persons, Singapore tour for ten persons and four
wheeler car upto Rs.20 lakh for investment of Rs.54,00,000/-.
Dubai tour, Thailand tour and Mumbai to Goa trip by Jalesh Cruise
were also promised. A person investing Rs.10,00,000/- was
promised one guntha plot at Shahuwadi. Moreover, if an individual
investor gets two more investors, the investor shall get a fixed
commission. According to the plan, the invested amount shall not
be returned before 36 months. The investors were called upon to
invest by cash, cheque or RTGS. Persons investing in their
company were promised a receipt, login ID, and Password.
Believing in the promise made on behalf of aforesaid two
companies, the informant invested Rs.25,00,000/- on 6 th June
2019 by cheque and NEFT. Accused No.24 and Accused No.11 in
May 2022 called the investors to inform them of the cash-back
plan and to send invested persons to Dubai. Accordingly, three
thousand investors invested an amount of Rs.35,05,000/- to
Rs.60,00,000/- in A.S. Token Cryptocurrency Plan, and 3000
people were promised a trip to Dubai. It was told that the
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
aforesaid two companies had ten more sister companies named in
the report.
4. The informant invested an amount by taking a hand loan
from his relative as he was getting regular returns. On 5 th January
2020, the informant paid Rs.24,50,000/- to Ravindra Desai, Sagar
Patil and Nasir Mulla towards the old generation plan. The
informant received regular returns from January 2019 to August
2022. However, the payments were made not from the A.S.
Traders company account but from companies like Trexum
Ventures LLP. The informant, in total, invested Rs.49,50,000/-. Due
to newspaper reports of fraud committed by A.S. Traders, the
informant inquired about the accused persons, and it was revealed
that accused No.3 had absconded by cheating thousands of people
for crores of rupees. On inquiry, it was revealed that twelve sister
companies were floated by accused No.3. Amount received in
those companies were invested in gold, immovable properties, and
luxury cars to make investor believe that the company was
genuine. Around 150 to 200 people gathered to lodge a report
against the accused persons.
5. Numerous investors lodged complaints. Based on their
complaints, C.R. No.917 of 2022 was registered against all accused
persons.
6. The applicants, therefore, filed applications before the
learned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court rejected the
applications. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have filed present
anticipatory bail applications.
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
7. According to learned advocate for the applicants, they are
not concerned with either A.S. Traders and Developers LLP or
sister companies either as directors or agents. They have not
induced any investors to invest their amount in the company. They
are unnecessarily dragged into this offence. According to them,
they are the victims of A.S. Traders and Developers LLP. The
applicants and their family members have invested huge amounts
with A.S. Traders and Developers LLP, and the amount they
received is towards returns of their invested amount. Received
amounts are either commissions for their service of getting
investors or the amounts are towards investment returns.
Tradewings Solutions Ltd is a registered firm to provide a platform
to its client for trading and did not engage in the practice of
serving clients or was ever promised any returns. They are ready to
cooperate with the investigation and to abide by the terms and
conditions; therefore, their custodial investigation is not necessary.
8. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that A.S.
Traders and Developer LLP was started by accused No.3 and other
persons. Considering their plans of astronomical returns, dishonest
and fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction is
apparent. The accused collectively formed bogus companies and
arranged different seminars to promote their plans for more
returns, foreign tours, flats and plots at lower prices. Such a
promise was executed on stamp papers. Instead of depositing the
amount in the share market for trading purposes, they deposited it
in different banks in the name of different companies. Initially, to
get investors' faith, they paid returns as promised; however, on
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
getting more investment, they stopped giving returns. The
investigation reveals that the applicants directly received the
amount from investors and utilized part of it for their own
purpose. They did not transfer part of the amount to A.S. Traders
and Developers LLP and Tradewings Solutions Ltd. The total bank
turnover of A.S. Traders and Developers LLP is 15,239 Crore 93
Lakh 69 thousand 398 Rupees. According to the prosecution,
custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to find details
of deposited amounts in different banks in the names of different
companies. To obtain details regarding login ID and Password and
technical data to trace a number of investors, details of the website
of companies and persons who created said website need to be
investigated. Without custodial interrogation, such elicitation-
oriented investigation is not possible. The accused persons have
travelled outside the country many times and, therefore, there is
the possibility of siphoning off the amount in foreign countries.
The accused persons have siphoned off amounts of investments
through share companies and by purchasing benami properties in
their relatives' names.
9. I have heard learned to advocate for the parties and victims.
Before considering the material on record, it is necessary to delve
into the parameters of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the context of
economic offence and, in particular, offences under Section 406,
409, 420 r/w 120B.
10. The Supreme Court, in the case of Narinderjit Singh
Sahani & Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in
(2002) (2) SCC 210, has held that an accused facing a charge
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B is ordinarily not entitled
to invoke the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure
Code unless it is established that such criminal accusation is not a
bona fide one.
11. In the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 in paragraph
382 has observed thus:
"382. The cause of the community deserves better treatment
at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial
functions. The community or the State is not a persona non
grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire
community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the Sate are not brought to book. A murder may
be committed in the heat of the moment upon passions being
aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool
calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be
manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of
the community in the system to administer justice in an
even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the
quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive
eye, unmindful of the damage done to the national economy
and national interest, as was aptly stated in State of Gujrat v.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal."
12. The Supreme Court, in the case of Himanshu
Chandravadan Desai And Ors vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in (2005) 13 SCC 234 was considering a similar case
where the applicant, along with other directors of a cooperative
bank, siphoned off funds of the bank by bogus and fictitious
documents. The Apex Court refused to grant regular bail under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. relying on Constitution Bench of the
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Legal Support Society vs.
Chief Justice of India And Anr., reported in 1986 (4) SCC
767, observing that the crime in which petitioners are involved is
very serious, involving a conspiracy to cheat and the fraud public
institutions for a systematic manner and punishment is likely to be
severe in the event of a conviction.
13. The Supreme Court, in the case of Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia etc. vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1980 (2) SCC
565, delineated the parameters exercising powers under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. holding "the larger interest of public or State" is one
of the relevant factors to be kept in mind by the Court while
deciding the application for anticipatory bail.
14. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. C.B.I., reported
in 2013 (7) SCC 466, the Apex Court, in paragraph 25, has
observed as under:
"25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to
be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed
seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the country."
In Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 622, it
was held:--
"The concept of corporate entity was evolved to encourage
and promote trade and commerce but not to commit
illegalities or to defraud people. Where, therefore, the
corporate character is employed for the purpose of
committing illegality or for defrauding others, the court
would ignore the corporate character and will look at the
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
reality behind the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass
appropriate orders to do justice between the parties
concerned...."
"We feel impelled to make a few observations. What
happened in this case is illustrative of what is happening in
our country on a fairly wide scale in diverse forms. Some
persons in the upper strata (which means the rich and the
influential class of the society) have made the 'property
career' the sole aim of their life. The means have become
irrelevant -- in a land where its greatest son born in this
century said "means are more important than the ends". A
sense of bravado prevails; everything can be managed; every
authority and every institution can be managed. All it takes
is to "tackle" or "manage" it in an appropriate manner. They
have developed an utter disregard for law nay, a contempt
for it; the feeling that law is meant for lesser mortals and not
for them. The courts in the country have been trying to
combat this trend, with some success as the recent events
show. But how many matters can we handle. How many
more of such matters are still there? The real question is how
to swing the polity into action, a polity which has become
indolent and soft in its vitals? Can the courts alone do it?
Even so, to what extent, in the prevailing state of affairs? Not
that we wish to launch upon a diatribe against anyone in
particular but Judges of this Court are also permitted, we
presume, to ask in anguish, "What have we made of our
country in less than fifty years"? Where has the respect and
regard for law gone? And who is responsible for it?"
15. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the exponential rise in
white-collar crimes has affected the country's economic structure,
which has serious repercussions on the development of the country
as a whole. Apparently, financial scams have the origin of
committing fraud with the public money running into crores and
crores of rupees. The nation's economy is put in stagnation when
such a massive amount is pocketed in by vested interests through
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
fraudulent means leaving the poor citizen's hard-earned money,
which he invested for his prosperity or to cater for the evenings of
his life, for being siphoned off by a few culprits. Grant of
anticipatory bail in a case of such huge magnitude is further likely
to have an adverse effect on the case's progress and the trust
reposed by the society in the judicial system.
16. Reverting back facts of the case, the prima facie dishonest
and fraudulent intention of the accused persons is apparent as they
promised impossible astronomical returns of 5% interest per
month, return of the entire principal amount after 36 months, in
addition to the bonus of foreign tours. According to the
prosecution, all applicants were present in the seminar organized
at the start of the declaration of investment schemes. The
applicants were introduced to investors as either the directors of
shell companies or their authorized representatives. According to
the prosecution, applicants persuaded the investors to invest in
A.S. Traders and Developers LLP and Tradewings Solutions Ltd.
Prima facie material on record indicates that accused No.14-Pravin
Vijay Patil received an amount of Rs.1,20,15,258/- from 116
investors from 24th October 2018 till 2nd November 2022. Accused
No.15-Santosh Ramesh Mandlik received an amount of
Rs.36,32,693/- from 59 investors from 18th December 2018 till 28th
June 2022. Accused No.17-Dattatray Vishwanath Todkar received
Rs.41,28,841/- from 53 investors from 17 th December 2018 to 13th
September 2022. Accused No.21-Mahesh, Balwant Shewale,
received an amount of Rs.87,45,416/- from 213 investors from
17th October 2018 to 20th October 2022. Accused No.24-Chandso
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
Ilai Kazi received an amount of Rs.1,27,99,228/- from 119
investors from 14th September 2019 to 6th July 2022. Accused
No.26-Amit Arun Shinde received an amount of Rs.1,56,52,090/-
from 114 investors from 5th December 2018 to 6th September 2022.
Accused No.27-Abhijeet Sahebrao Shelke received an amount of
Rs.64,98,067/- from 120 investors from 22 nd January 2020 to 10th
October 2022. Accused No.28 Deepak Baburao Mohite received an
amount of Rs.11,98,460/- from 12 investors from 26 th May 2022
till 7th February 2022.
17. As regards applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1081 of 2023 is concerned, according to him, he resigned from
the company on 9th June 2022. However, no incontrovertible
document is produced on record in support of the said submission.
Prima facie, it appears that from 15 th May 2021 till 22nd April 2022
amount of Rs.5,60,00,000/- have been transferred in the account
of Gainero Ventures LLP. The applicant is authorized signatory of
Gainero Ventures LLP. The investors have also paid various
amounts to Gainero Ventures LLP. Prima facie, it also appears that
installments of four wheeler car owned by the applicant Amit
Shinde, Santosh Mandalik, Pravin Patil, Chandso Kazi, Namdev
Patil, Dattatray Todkar are paid from the account of A. S. Trading
and Developers LLP.
18. Prima facie details of amounts received by the applicants
from investors surfaced based on documents in the form of cash
vouchers seized from A.S. Traders and Developers LLP and
statements of investors before the investigating agency. According
to the prosecution, either part of the amount received by the
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
applicants or the entire amount received from the investors is not
transferred by the applicants to A.S. Traders and Developers LLP,
which needs to be ascertained during custodial interrogation.
Therefore, elicitation-oriented custodial interrogation of the
applicants is necessary to find out the preparation, commission
and aftermath of the offences alleged against the applicants.
According to the investigating agency, it is impossible to trace
crime money without custodial interrogation. During the
investigation, the investigating agency needs to investigate
whether the amounts received by the applicants from A.S. Traders
and Developers LLP and shell companies are paid towards
commission, or returns of their investment, or the amounts are
part of crime money.
19. According to the prosecution, the applicants (Accused Nos.
5, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 28) are the directors of shell companies. The
prosecution has placed reliance on the following chart to show the
connection of applicants (Accused Nos. 5, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 28)
with the shell companies.
Sr. Name of Company Director
No.
1. A.S. Traders and Developers LLP 1. Lohitsingh Dharmsingh
Subhedar
2. Nisar Ismail Mulla
3 Sudha Sudhakar Khad
2. A. S. Traders Solutions Limited 1. Vijay Jyotiram Patil
2. Suvarna Shrirang
Sarnaik
3. Mahesh Balwant
Shevale
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
4. Kumbhar Kumar (hand
written)
3. Comercio Vibrant LLP 1. Pravin Vijay Patil
2. Santosh Ramesh
Mandalik
4. Gainero Ventures LLP 1. Deepak Baburao
Mohite
2. Mahesh Bajirao Arekar
Patil
5. Trexum Ventures LLP 1. Yuvraj Tanaji
Khedkar
2. Dattatray Vishwanath
Todkar
6. Capitus Ceker Traders and 1. Shivaji Ganpati Hajare
Developers LLP 2. Babaso Bhupal
Dhangar
7. Tradewings Solutions Limited 1. Santosh Nandkumar
Kumbar
2. Babu Krushna Hajare
3. Vikram Jyotiram Nale
4. Ravindra Pradiprao
Desai
8. Vaibhavlaxmi Finbiz Private 1. Shivaji Dhondiram
Limited Shinde
2. Vinayak Vilas Sutar
9. Algowings Softech Private Limited 1. Sagar Panditrao Shinde
2. Ravindra Pradiprao
Desai
10. Tradewings Gurukul Foundation 1. Sagar Panditrao Patil
2. Ravindra Pradiprao
Desai
-------------
-------------
20. During the investigation, the total turnover of shell
companies as regards investors' amounts is as under:
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
(i) Gainero Ventures LLP bank account transaction of
Rs.359,31,34,094/-; and cash deposit by 180 investors
Rs.4,34,00,000/-.
(ii) Trexum Ventures LLP bank account transaction of
Rs.28,56,09,013/-; and cash deposit by 84 investors
Rs.1,55,20,000/-.
(iii) Comercio Vibrant LLP bank account transaction of
Rs.254,93,45,896/-; and cash deposit by 67 investors
Rs.1,08,30,000/-.
(iv) Trading Solutions Ltd. bank account transaction of
Rs.21,96,69,537/-.
(v) A.S. Traders Solutions Ltd. bank account transaction of
Rs.12,07,97,259/-.
(vi) Capitus Ceker Traders And Developers LLP bank account
transaction of Rs.310,64,12,530/-; and cash deposit by 314
investors Rs.7,20,90,000/-.
21. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the applicants are
connected with either shell companies or A.S. Traders or, as their
representatives, have accepted cash amounts from investors but
failed to deposit them either in part or full in A.S. Traders or
Tradewings Solutions Ltd. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the
applicants is necessary.
22. The importance of custodial interrogation has been
emphasized in paragraph 6 by the Apex Court in the case of State
represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma reported in (1997) 7 SCC
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
187 as under:
"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded
with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. In a
case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of
tremendous advantage in disintering many useful
informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated.
Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to
a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation
is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to
third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an
argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police
Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring
offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
23. In the present case involving misappropriation of such
enormous magnitude, elicitation-oriented interrogation is
necessary as the investigating agency has the advantage of
disinterring useful information and material that may have been
concealed if the applicant is granted pre-arrest protection.
24. In a recent judgment in the case of Sumitha Pradeep vs
Arun Kumar, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1529, the Apex
Court was considering the validity of an order passed by the High
Court releasing an accused on the ground that custodial
interrogation is not necessary. The Apex Court held that custodial
interrogation could be one of the relevant aspects to be considered
along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking
anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does
not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be
ignored or overlooked, and he should be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory
bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up
against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into, along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds for declining custodial
interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not
required or necessitated, that by itself cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail.
25. Considering the magnitude of the financial scam, the
applicants do not deserve relief under section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. Hence, on overall consideration of
aforesaid factors, the anticipatory bail applications deserve to be
rejected.
26. The anticipatory bail applications stand rejected.
27. In view of disposal of the anticipatory bail applications, all
pending interim applications stand disposed of as infructuous.
28. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant requested
for continuation of ad-interim relief. Learned APP and learned
advocate for the victims objected for continuation of ad-interim
relief mainly on the ground that ad-interim protection was not
granted on merits. According to him, protection was granted as the
investigation officer was not present. Based on the said order,
remaining co-accused have been protected from the month of April
1-aba-974-2023 and ors-f.doc
2023.
29. Considering the reasons stated aforesaid and the magnitude
of the scam, no case for continuation of ad-interim relief is made
out.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
