Bombay High Court
Ajeet Gunwant Parse vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kotwali Nagpur on 1 February, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:1234
1 20-BA-756-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 756 OF 2023
AJEET GUNWANT PARSE
Vrs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D. V. Chauhan, Advocate with Shri Raju Kadu, Advocate for
applicant.
Shri N. R. Rode, A. P. P. for respondent-State.
CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23/01/2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 01/02/2024.
1. By this application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is seeking his
release on bail in connection with Crime No.279/2022
registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
384 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The applicant came to be arrested on
05/04/2023 and since then, he is behind bar.
3. As per the allegations levelled against the
present applicant, on the basis of report lodged by
Dr. Rajesh Vishodhan Murkute at Kotwali Police Station on
11/10/2022 that present applicant came into his contact
through his cousin brother Mr.Hemant Jambhekar. Due to
said contact, accused started visiting the house of
2 20-BA-756-23.odt
informant and gained the confidence of the informant. As
per the discussion in between Mr.Hemant Jambhekar and
present applicant and the informant for starting new
Homeopathy College, the accused - applicant assured that
he would help them to start Homeopathy College. He also
suggested that they have to constitute a Trust and
Committee. Accordingly, the committee was constituted. It
is further alleged that the accused had visited the
Homeopathy Clinic of informant at Badkas Chouk, Kotwali
and asked for PAN and Aadhar Card to all the proposed
Trustees. The accused informed the informant that they
would also start a Trading Company in the name of Yash
Global Trade Line and under the scheme of social
responsibility, he would secure the funds for the said firms
for which the informant had given consent. Thereafter, the
applicant had sent a WhatsApp message to the informant
and demanded Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Lakhs) to
release the CSR Fund in advance from the informant. As
the informant was not having such huge amount along
with him, he shown his inability to pay the amount. Again,
on the next date, accused had sent a message to the
informant and demanded the money. The accused has also
asked the informant to get a shop licence under the name
of Yash Global Trade Line and accordingly, the informant
and his wife has obtained a shop licence in the name of
said firm and was also sent a WhatsApp message to the
informant. On 15/07/2020, the accused demanded the
amount in the name of said firm and assured that CSR
3 20-BA-756-23.odt
fund would be released. Accordingly, informant has
opened the account in the name of Yash Global Trade
Line. The applicant has sent a screen shot to the informant
of PMO office, New Delhi. The applicant also assured the
informant that he would get 5 files and had assured that
informant would get Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Rs.Seven crores).
The informant was further informed that he will receive
some files from PMO office and demanded Rs.25,00,000/-
(Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs). Accordingly, the informant has
paid Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs) and
Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs) to the applicant as
demended by him. Thereafter, from time to time, the
applicant has demanded amount and obtained
Rs.4,36,50,000/- (Rs.Four Crore Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty
Thousand) from the informant.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that
on 18/11/2020 when the informant and accused had been
to Delhi in connection with the work of Yash Globle Trade
Line, the applicant informed the informant to send e-mail
on the e-mail ID given by the applicant and also asked to
send e-mail on the said e-mail ID stating that due to
Covid situation, they were unable to reach and had to
leave for Nagpur and both the informant and accused
returned back to Nagpur. Thereafter, the informant
received various e-mails on his address in the name of
Mr.Raju Mehra, who is an IAS officer of PMO office
periodically stating that one Mr.Raju Mehra from PMO
office had assured to do work and also requested to pay
4 20-BA-756-23.odt
some amount, if the work was to be done. The accused
have also sent one pass of Rashtrapati Bhavan and had
asked the informant that he was called at Rashtrapati
Bhavan at New Delhi. On 15/05/2021, the accused had
again sent a WhatsApp message to the informant showing
that income tax message was forwarded, which was issued
by Priti Das, Income Tax Officer containing her signature
and also told that it was a voucher and the amount was
credited on the account of the informant. It is further
informed that the Income Tax Department has released
the amount in the name of informant and also sent a letter
to one Mr. M. D. Gosavi, Income Tax Commissioner which
was containing his signature and the said letter was sent
to the e-mail of the informant through e-mail ID. Thus,
informant has received the e-mail from the said e-mail ID
and the informant was convinced that his amount is to be
released and he would get the amount in his name. In the
month of July, 2021, the applicant had again sent a copy
of warrant stating that brother of the wife of the
informant had purchased on child and for that purpose, a
warrant was issued and information was again received a
mail from some e-mail IDs and to get rid of the said
aspect, he had demanded Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rs.Two
Crores) from the informant. Due to fear, informant was
ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs.One
crore) to the accused in cash and Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs.Forty
Lakhs) twice and Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs) once
in three installments. Thus, amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
5 20-BA-756-23.odt
(Rs.One crore) was paid by the informant and accused
informed the informant that now, enquiry was closed.
After some days, again the informant has received a
WhatsApp message stating that the account was opened in
the Canera Bank and he would receive account through
courier and said kit would come after some days to his
residential address. The applicant has sent the photograph
of said kit to the informant and also assured that by way
of the said tool kit, the informant can withdraw the
amount from his account. However, the informant has not
received any such tool kit and thereafter, the applicant
started avoiding the informant. Thus, as per the
allegations, the applicant has extracted the amount of
Rs.4,36,50,000/- (Rs.Four Crore Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty
Thousand) from the informant and therefore, the
informant has lodged a report against the accused at
Kotwali Police Station.
5. Heard Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned counsel for
the applicant. He submitted that on the basis of
improbabe story narrated by the informant, the crime is
registered against the present applicant and he is arrested.
He submitted that as per the allegations except the
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Lakhs), rest of the
amount was received by the applicant from the informant
in cash. He invited my attention towards the statement of
the informant and submitted that in the said statement,
the informant had stated that he had obtained the said
amount from various persons. However, the Investigating
6 20-BA-756-23.odt
Agency has not recorded the statements of some of the
persons. The amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Lakhs)
is already repaid by the present applicant. As per the
statement, the informant has obtained the amount of
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs.Forty Lakhs) from one Mr.Amit Bembi,
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Lakhs) from Mr.Manoj Jain,
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs) from Mr.Ashok Krushnani,
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Lakhs) from Mr.Jatin Malviya,
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs.Forty Lakhs) from one Mr. Cheda,
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Lakhs) from one Mr.Kailas
Pacheriwala and Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Lakhs) from
Babu Chabdiya. However, their statements are not
recorded. The informant has obtained the loan against LIC
policy and loan from the Apexa Society and Vivekanand
Society and there is no document to support the said
contention. Thus, entire investigation is carried out on the
assumptions. Now, investigation is completed and charge
sheet is filed. Considering the nature of the material
collected during investigation, further incarceration of the
present applicant is not required. In fact, no offence is
made out against the present applicant. The present
applicant is from respectable family and was running
various institutes to help the poor strata of the society. He
is a Social Worker assisted various persons. Considering
the background of the present applicant and the material
collected during investigation, no prima facie case is made
out against the present applicant. In view of that, he be
released on bail.
7 20-BA-756-23.odt
6. The said application is strongly opposed by
the State on the ground that after registration of the
crime, the Investigating Agency has visited the house of
the present applicant and during house search, 6 mobile
phones, 4 laptops, 5 computers are seized from his house.
The Investigating Agency had also seized Bank Rubber
Stamp; Rubber Stamps in the name of Police Station,
Ambazari; Sadar Police Station Rubber Stamp; Rubber
Stamp in the name of Income Tax Department and Rubber
Stamp of Office of Deputy Registrar. It further revealed
during investigation that the e-mail IDs in the name of
Secretary to the Office of PMO Mr.Amitabh Singh and
Mr.Raju Mehra had been created and forwarded to the
informant on verification of the said allegations and
scrutiny of the mobile phone, it revealed that the Login ID
used was that of the applicant and the recovery of mobile
phone was that of the applicant which makes it clear that
those names were sent through mobile of the applicant in
the name of Mr. Amitabh Singh and Mr.Raju Mehra. Thus,
looking into the nature of the offence and material seized
from the house search of the applicant, serious offence
was unearthed and therefore, if applicant is released on
bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence and
would not be available for trial. Considering the names of
the officers of the PMO Office and the passes from the
Rashtrapati Bhavan are issued by the applicant by forging
the documents show the gravity of the offence. In view of
8 20-BA-756-23.odt
that, the application of the applicant deserves to be
rejected.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the
applicant and learned APP for the State, on perusal of the
investigation papers, it reveals that the informant was
desiring to start Homeopathy College through his cousin.
He got acquaintance with the present applicant. The
present applicant represented himself that he is
acquainted with the officers who are working in the PMO
office and on the pretext of obtaining CSR fund, obtained
the huge amount from the informant. Not only this, but
adhereing to investigation, the Investigating Officer has
conducted the house search and during the house search,
6 mobile phones, 4 laptops, 5 computers and CPU were
seized. During the house search, the Investigating Officer
has also seized a Rubber Stamp in the name of Bank,
Police Station, Income Tax Department, Rubber Stamp of
Office of Deputy Registrar (Documents), etc. The
Investigating Agency has also seized the mobile phones,
which are analized by the Forensic Expert from which it
revealed that e-mail IDs in the name of Secretary to the
PMO Office Mr. Amitabh Singh and Mr. Raju Mehra had
been forwarded to the complainant and on verification of
said allegation, it revealed that the applicant has sent the
said e-mails in the name of said officials of PMO office and
also sent his mobile number to the informant. Thus, it was
the present applicant who has sent e-mail in the name of
Secretary to the PMO Office namely; Mr.Amitabh Singh
9 20-BA-756-23.odt
and Mr.Raju Mehra. During the seizure panchnama, some
documents mentioning the Chief Judge, District Court,
Nagpur are also seized by the Investigating Agency. The
statements of various witnesses are also recorded showing
the involvement of the present applicant. The
communication issued to the Google Legal Investigation
Support is also placed on record, which shows that the
Cybler Police analized and it revealed to them that
accused sent victim an e-mail and demanded payment
from him to the extent of Rs.4,36,00,000/- (Rs.Four Crore
Thirty Six Lakhs). The information received from the
Google shows that no such e-mail IDs are operated by the
officers of the PMO office. During investigation, it further
revealed that the applicant has obtained amount of
Rs.4,36,50,000/- (Rs.Four Crore Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty
Thousand) from the informant on the pretext of obtaining
the CSR fund by giving false assurance, but the informant
has not received any amount. It further revealed that the
applicant has put the informant under the fear of arrest by
the CBI and prepared the eloctronic document as offender
whereby shown that the warrant issued by CBI against the
complainant in relation to income tax and for avoiding
any legal action at the hands of CBI, the applicant has
taken the amount from the informant from time to time to
prevent the informant from legal action at the hands of
CBI. By communicating with the consent of CBI, the
Investigating Officer has obtained the information and it
revealed that no such enquiry is pending with the CBI in
10 20-BA-756-23.odt
respect of the informant. The present applicant has
fabricated e-mail ID in the name of one Mr.Amitabh Singh
and Mr.Raju Mehra, who are working in the office of
Prime Minister and sent the e-mails to the informant by
creating fabricated and bogus ID in the name of those
persons. The applicant has also given his own e-mail
address and mobile number at the time of creating false
and fake e-mail ID. During the course of investigation, the
statments of Abhishekh Mankar and Vikrant Thakre, who
were employees of present applicant categorically stated
that they have brought cash from the complainant in a
cloth bag and handed over to the present applicant. Thus,
allegation is that the applicant has obtained cash amount
from the informant is substatiated by the said statement.
The applicant has used the name of the Department of the
Central Government and the State Government to extract
the money from the complainant. Not only this, the passes
were issued to the complainant showing that the passes
are issued to the complainant by the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Thus, the said passes are also created by the present
applicant by fabrication. Thus, not only the Office of the
PMO, but the name of Rashtrapati Bhavan is also used by
the present applicant by issuing fabricated pass in the
name of the complainant. Thus, prima facie material
against the present applicant showing his involvement in
the fabrication of the documents and obtaining the
amount from the informant from time to time.
11 20-BA-756-23.odt
8. Though Shri D. V. Chauhan, learned counsel
for the applicant vehemently submitted that as far as the
obtaining of the money is concerned, there is no material
to show the same, but the statements of the witnesses
substantiate the said facts. If the allegation against the
present applicant is considered, it is a grave economic
offence. Admittedly, in view of the Judgments of Sanjay
Chandra Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in
(2012) 1 SCC 40 and P. Chidambaram Vrs. Directorate of
Enforcement, reported in 2019(9) SCC 24 that even if the
allegation is one of the grave economic offences, it is not a
rule that bail should be denied in every case. Ultimately,
the consideration has to be made on case to case basis.
The primary object is to secure the presence of the
accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court further referred the case
of Satender Kumar Antil Vrs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 by referring
the Judgment of P. Chidambaram referred (supra) and
observed that while highlighting the evil of economic
offences like money laundering and its adverse impact on
the society and citizens, observed that arrest infringes the
fundamental right to life. The detention or jail before
being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become
punishment without trial. While the prosecution may
pertain to economic offence, or yet it may not be proper to
equate these cases with those punishable with death,
imprisonment for life, 10 years or more life offences under
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
12 20-BA-756-23.odt
1985. Admittednly, at the stage of granting bail and
elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons
touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice
accused should be avoided, but there is need to indicate
the reasons why bail is not granted. Prima facie on the
basis of allegations levelled against the applicant, it shows
that applicant has not only cheated the informant, but also
he has used the names of the officers of the PMO Office as
well as he has fabricated the pass to show that the pass
was issued from the Rashtrapati Bhavan, which is
admittedly a serious act. During investigation, it revealed
that some Seals and Stamps are seized from the house of
present applicant including Stamps of the Banks, Stamps
of various Central Government Offices and so on. The
statements of the witnesses also show that they have
obtained the money from informant and handed over to
the present applicant. During investigation, one more
offence is registered against the present applicant vide
Crime No.408/2022 in the similar nature and one
complaint is received that applicant has obtained the
money on the pretext of providing the job. Thus, it reveals
that several persons are coming forward to make their
grievances against the present applicant.
9. It is well settled position of law that the
jurisdiction to grant bail has to be excercised having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The
facts are to be taken into consideration, are the nature of
accusation and severity of the punishment, reasonable
13 20-BA-756-23.odt
apprehension of tampering with witnesses, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of accused and
character, behaviour and standard of accused. Each case
has to be considered on its own merit. In the present case,
considering the nature of crime not only the huge amount
is involved, but also considering various seals at the
instance of present applicant, the e-mail IDs created in the
names of officials of the PMO office and forged pass is
issued by the present applicant to show that the said pass
was issued from Rashtrapati Bhavan and complainant was
asked to go to Delhi to visit the Rashtrapati Bhavan is a
serious offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing
with offence involving the economic offence of huge
magnitude in the case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vrs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2013(7) SSC
439 laid down following parameters :-
i] Economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different approach
in the matter of bail.
ii] Economic offences 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 a serious threat to the financial health of
the country and while granting bail, the Court
has to keep in mind the nature of accusations,
14 20-BA-756-23.odt
the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will
entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence
of the accused at the trial, the reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public / State
and other similar considerations.
10. Considering the role of the applicant, a crime
having involved the amounts, the seizure of various seals
of the State Government and the Central Government
Offices, fabrication of the e-mail IDs in the name of the
officers working in the PMO office. The document which is
fabricated in the names of officials of Rashtrapati Bhavan
shows the gravity of the offence and the role of the
applicant which is clearly exposed.
11. In the backdrop of the accusation and its
gravity, the applicant is not entitlled for being released on
bail and therefore, application deserves to be rejected and
the same is rejected.
12. The application stands disposed of.
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/02/2024 14:14:07
