Mahesh Lalchand Bohra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2943 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:9553-DB

                                                                              21. IA 665-2023.doc


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 665 OF 2023
                                                      IN
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2019


               Mahesh Lalchand Bohra                               ...Applicant
                    Versus
               The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.          ...Respondents


               Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Manas Gawankar & Mr.
               Parth Sanghrajka i/b Rajeev Sawant & Associates, for the Applicant.

               Mr. Amit Munde, Spl.P.P for the CBI.

               Ms. S.S.Kaushik, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

                                               CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
                                                       SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 27th MARCH, 2023

P.C. :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By the aforesaid application, the applicant seeks suspension

of his sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final

Wakodikar 1/7

21. IA 665-2023.doc

disposal of his aforesaid appeal.

3. The applicant is original accused No.3. The applicant

alongwith other co-accused, vide Judgment and Order dated 26 th

April, 2019, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Greater

Bombay, in Special Case No. 69 of 2005, has been convicted and

sentenced as under:-

"- for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 120B of the

Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to

pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for 2 years;

- for the offence punishable under Section 466 of the Indian Penal

code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for 2 years;

- for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal

Code, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-,

in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two

Wakodikar 2/7

21. IA 665-2023.doc

years;

- for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal

Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for 1 years;

- for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal

Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months;

- for the offence punishable under Section 419 of the Indian Penal

Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for 6 months;

- for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian

Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay

fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for 2 years.

Wakodikar                                                                                      3/7




                                                                         21. IA 665-2023.doc

All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. According to the prosecution, the applicant introduced

original accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Bank, who in turn, granted credit

facility of Rs.2.50 lakhs to the accused Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Gupte,

learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

was working as a Chartered Accountant with the said firm and that

there are no allegations that he submitted any forged documents to the

Bank. He submits that the only allegation as against the applicant is

that he introduced the original accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Assistant

General Manager, Bank of India, who in turn, granted credit facility to

the accused Nos.1 and 2. He submits that there are no allegations that

the applicant committed forgery of any documents. Learned Senior

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant,

admittedly, was not a beneficiary of the said credit facility granted by

the Bank to the original accused Nos.1 and 2 nor is it the prosecution

case that the applicant derived any benefit from the said credit facility

granted by the Bank.

Wakodikar                                                                                    4/7




                                                                           21. IA 665-2023.doc

5. Mr. Munde, learned Spl.P.P appearing for the respondent

No.1-CBI opposes the application. He submits that there is no parity

with the other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail and whose

sentences have been suspended. He submits that the evidence on

record shows that it was the applicant who had submitted notarized

copies of documents to the Bank, and based on the said documents,

Mr. Bhagwanji Joshi, Assistant General Manager, Bank of India,

sanctioned credit facility of Rs.2.50 lakhs to the accused Nos.1 and 2.

6. Perused the papers including the orders dated 21 st March,

2022 enlarging co-accused - Bhagwanji Dayaram Joshi on bail and the

order dated 27th June, 2022 enlarging co-accused - Shantilal

Tarachand Chouhan on bail. It appears that apart from the said co-

accused, one lawyer (Original Accused No.8), his sentence has also

been suspended and he is enlarged on bail. No doubt, the role of each

of the accused is different, however, the fact remains that the applicant

was on bail, pending trial and had not misused or abused his liberty

Wakodikar 5/7

21. IA 665-2023.doc

whilst on bail. It also appears that the credit facility given in favour of

the accused Nos.1 and 2 was subsequently repaid by them. It is not

clear as to what forgery has been committed by the applicant, a

Chartered Accountant working with the said firm. Be that as it may,

the appeal of the applicant is admitted by this Court vide order dated

12th June, 2019 and the said appeal is not likely to be heard in the

immediate near future.

7. Considering the role of the applicant and also having

perused the orders passed by this Court enlarging some of the co-

accused on bail, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly,

the applicant's sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail,

pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal, on the following

terms and conditions;

ORDER

(i) The applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R.

Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties

in the like amount;

Wakodikar                                                                                         6/7




                                                                               21. IA 665-2023.doc



                         (ii)       The applicant shall deposit his passport, if any, with

the Investigating Officer before his release on bail;

(iii) The applicant shall furnish his residential address and

contact number to the Investigating Officer, before his

release on bail;

(iv) The applicant shall report to the Investigating

Agency's Office at Mumbai, once in two months, till the

disposal of his appeal.

8. The application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid

terms.

9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

order.

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Wakodikar                                                                                          7/7