Bombay High Court
Ravindra S/O Shrinivasrao Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 1 July, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:6769
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.44/2020
Ravindra s/o Shrinivasrao Shinde
..vs..
The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station Officer, P.S.Ramnagar,
Chandrapur, Taluka and District Chandrapur and anr
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.45/2020
Ravindra s/o Shrinivasrao Shinde
..vs..
The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station Officer, P.S.Ramnagar,
Chandrapur, Taluka and District Chandrapur and anr
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.46/2020
Ravindra s/o Shrinivasrao Shinde
..vs..
The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station Officer, P.S.Ramnagar,
Chandrapur, Taluka and District Chandrapur and anr
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.58/2021
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ramnagar,
Chandrapur
..vs..
Sachin s/o Manohar Salve
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.59/2021
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ramnagar,
Chandrapur
..vs..
Manohar s/o Laxman Paunkar
.....2/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
2
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.60/2021
State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ramnagar,
Chandrapur
..vs..
Vinod s/o Ratan Giri
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order
and Registrar's orders
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
Cr. Application No.44/2020
Shri Anil S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ved Deshpande, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate for NA
No.2.
Ms.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for NA No.1/State.
Cr. Application No.45/2020
Shri Anil S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ved Deshpande, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Shri Tejas Deshpande, Counsel for NA No.2.
Ms.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for NA No.1/State.
Cr. Application No.46/2020
Shri Anil S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ved Deshpande, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate for NA
No.2.
Ms.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for NA No.1/State.
*****
Cr. Application No.58/2021
Ms.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant/State.
Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate for the NA.
Cr. Application No.59/2021
Ms.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant/State.
Shri Tejas Deshpande, Counsel for the NA.
Cr. Application No.60/2021
Ms.H.N.Prabhu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant/State.
Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate for the NA.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 24/06/2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 01/07/2024
.....3/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
1. By these applications (Criminal Application Nos.44, 45,
and 46/2020), Ravindra s/o Shrinivasrao Shinde (the complainant)
seeks cancellation of bail granted to Vinod s/o Ratan Giri, Manohar
s/o Laxman Paunkar, and Sachin s/o Manohar Salve (the accused
persons).
So also, by applications (Criminal Application Nos.58,
59, and 60/2021), the State of Maharashtra seeks cancellation of bail
granted to the accused persons.
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur vide
orders dated 29.9.2020; 21.10.2020, and 29.9.2020 passed in Misc.
Criminal Application Nos.833/2020; 887/2020, and 832/2020 has
granted bail to the accused persons.
3. Accused Manohar s/o Laxman Paunkar, was Chairman
of the Chandrapur District Cooperative Bank Limited and accused
Vinod s/o Ratan Giri and Sachin s/o Manohar Salve are partners of
"M/s.Mai Enterprises". Crime bearing No.767/2020 was registered
on the basis of report lodged by the complainant alleging that
accused Manohar Paunkar, in connivance with other two accused, by
misutilizing funds of the said bank, paid excess amount for purchase
.....4/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
of various commodities since the year 2015. It is further alleged that
while purchasing various commodities for the bank, he has not
followed tender process and he allotted most of tenders to "M/s.Mai
Enterprises," which is an unregistered partnership firm. As per
allegations, the accused persons have misappropriated amount
Rs.7,30,77,750/-. On the basis of the said allegations, the crime was
registered against the accused persons under Sections 420 and 409
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the
crime, the accused persons filed applications (as the aforesaid) for
grant of bail wherein they were released on bail.
4. These present applications are filed by the complainant
as well as the State of Maharashtra for cancellation of bail on ground
that while releasing the accused persons on bail, learned Judge
below has not considered their involvement in economic offences.
Further ground raised was that, from inspection report, it revealed
that accused Manohar Paunkar, without comparing prices in open
market, accepted quotation of "Mai Enterprises' and paid excess
amount to it. During investigation, tendered documents were seized
from the accused persons. Thus, the accused persons caused loss to
the tune of Rs.7,30,77,750/- to the said bank. Learned Judge below,
by ignoring these facts, granted bail to the accused persons. The
.....5/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
orders passed by learned Judge below, are by ignoring material
evidence collected during investigation and, therefore, the bail
granted to the accused persons deserves to be cancelled.
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar for
the complainant; learned Senior Counsel Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari
along with Shri R.M.Daga for accused Vinod s/o Ratan Giri and and
accused Sachin s/o Manohar Salve; learned counsel Shri Tejas
Deshpande for accused Manohar s/o Laxman Paunkar, and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.H.N.Prabhu for the State.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar, submitted
that the complainant is one of Directors of the said bank and he
lodged the report against the accused persons. A huge fraud is
committed by the accused persons and learned Judge below has
granted bail by ignoring relevant materials. A public fund is
misutilized by the accused persons. The inspection report shows the
manner in which quotations were called and tender was allotted.
The observations of the court below were not in consonance with the
prosecution case. Thus, orders are passed by learned Judge below
ignoring the entire material collected during the investigation.
Further custodial interrogation of the accused persons are required.
As such, these applications deserve to be allowed.
.....6/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
7. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel
Shri Anil S.Mardikar, placed reliance on the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Puran vs. Rambilas and
another, reported in (2001)6 SCC 338.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.H.N.Prabhu for
the State, endorsed the same contentions made by learned Senior
Counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar and submitted that learned Judge
below, ignoring the material evidence collected during investigation,
passed orders granting bail to the accused persons and, therefore,
these applications filed for cancellation of bail deserve to be allowed.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari,
submitted that consideration for grant of and cancellation of bail are
completely different. It is settled law that cancellation of bail can be
done in cases where orders granting bail suffer from serious
infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that
learned Judge below, while granting bail, assigned reasons in orders
and invited my attention to paragraph Nos.25 and 29 of the said
orders wherein learned Judge below considered the entire aspect
and allowed the bail applications of the accused persons. Now, the
accused persons are on bail since 29.9.2020; 21.10.2020, and
29.9.2020 respectively. Approximately, four years have already
.....7/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
passed. No purpose would be served by sending the accused persons
behind the bars. The investigation is also completed. Though the
accused persons are involved in economic offences, the law is settled
by the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anr, reported in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 wherein it is held that economic offences
cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and
may differ from one case to another and, therefore, it is not advisable
on the part of the court to categorize all offences into one group and
deny bail on that basis. Thus, he submitted that merely because the
accused persons are involved in economic offences, that by itself is
not sufficient to cancel the bail granted in their favour.
10. Learned counsel Shri R.M.Daga, also supported the said
contentions made by learned Senior Counsel Shri S.P.Dharmadhikari
and placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court
in the cases of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and X vs. State of Telangana and
another, reported in (2018)16 SCC 511.
11. Before adverting to merits of the matter, it is necessary
to see the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court as far as
cancellation of bail is concerned.
.....8/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
12. In Myakala Dharmarajam and ors vs. State of Telangana
and anr, reported in 30(2020)2 SCC 743, it is held that it is trite law
that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order
granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage
of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material
indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into
account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question
of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court
would be justified in cancelling the bail.
13. In Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P., reported in 2023(2)
Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (SC) 196, wherein it is held that there is certainly no
straight jacket formula which exists for courts to assess an
application for grant or rejection of bail but the determination of
whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves balancing of
numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the
severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement
of the accused are important. The Honourable Apex Court laid down
illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled, a) where
the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of
substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant
material on record; b) where the court granting bail overlooks the
.....9/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of
abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of
position and power over the victim; c) where the past criminal
record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while
granting bail; d) where bail has been granted on untenable grounds;
e) where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail
thereby causing prejudice to justice; f) where the grant of bail was
not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the
charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus
cannot be justified, and g) when the order granting bail is apparently
whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.
14. In the light of the well settled legal position, if the
evidence collected by the investigating agency is perused, it would
reveal that the complainant was Director of the said bank since 2012.
The transactions in question are from 2016 to 2019. The Audit
Report is collected and perusal of which shows that for purchasing
various commodities, the tenders were called time to time. By
Resolution dated 26.6.2018, it was decided that 45 UPS batteries are
to be purchased. Whereas, advertisement was published for
purchase of 99 batteries. The bills were paid before installation of
the said batteries and total 61 batteries were installed. Thus,
.....10/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
approval was not obtained for purchase of the said batteries. Again,
by Resolution dated 29.9.2018, it was decided to purchase 60 UPS
batteries. However, procedure of calling quotation was not followed.
The sum and substance of the Audit Report shows that without
receiving goods, bills were paid and excess commodities are
purchased without approval. Thus, the Audit Report points out that
various illegalities are committed during the tenure of accused
Manohar Paunkar and, therefore, the crime is registered.
15. While releasing the accused persons on bail, learned
Judge below has considered tender documents collected during the
investigation and the procedure was followed by the officers of the
bank. The trial court observed that there are allegations that the
firm has earned profit of 45% in the said charges, but there is no
evidence as to the profit earned by the firm of the accused persons
excluding the expenses like charges for transportation, labour,
overhead, and storage of hue quantity etc.. The trial court has
considered the nature of evidence, however observed that now most
of investigation is completed since the accused persons are arrested
and released them on bail and, therefore, in the contention made by
learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar that the trial court has
ignored the materials has no substance.
.....11/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
16. Even accepting that the accused persons are involved in
a serious offence, which is in the nature of economic offences, the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of P.Chidambaram vs. Directorate
of Enforcement, reported in (2020)13 SCC 791 that observed that
from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side
including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court,
it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail
remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and
refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the
same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be
kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have
to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case.
Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in
cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic
offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such
circumstance while considering the application for bail in such
matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to
the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term
of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to
have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of
.....12/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod
test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be
kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave
economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every
case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment
passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so.
Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the
nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone
will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may
have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will
have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and
securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
17. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, reported in (2012)1 SCC 40,
the Honourable Apex Court observed, as under:
"39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both
the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on
two grounds: the primary ground is that the offence
alleged against the accused persons is very serious
involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial
loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary
ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons
tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the
charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing
.....13/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of
cheating using as genuine a forged document. The
punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true
that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the
same time, the punishment to which the party may be
liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore,
in determining whether to grant bail, both the
seriousness of the charge and the severity of the
punishment should be taken into consideration.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the
discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated,
to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not
to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the
community against the accused. The primary purposes
of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of
imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of
keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to
keep the accused constructively in the custody of the
court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that
he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in
attendance thereon whenever his presence is required."
18. Thus, the Honourable Apex Court held that we are
conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic
offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that
.....14/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the
country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency has already completed investigation and the
charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New
Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary
for further investigation.
19. Similar is the situation in the present case also as the
investigation is already completed and chargesheet is already filed.
The discretion is exercised by learned Judge below by observing that
further incarceration of the accused persons is not required. As
observed by the Honourable Apex Court, grant or refusal of bail is
entirely upon discretion of a judge and it must be exercised in
judicious manner. The grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the
exception.
20. The accused persons are released on bail long back.
Moreover, it is not contention of learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State that the accused persons have misused the
liberty granted in their favour. The investigation into the crime is
already completed and chargesheet is already filed. As far as the
allegation, that the material evidence is ignored, is not substantiated.
Considering all these facts, these applications seeking cancellation of
.....15/-
238 appln44.20; 45.20; 46.20 & 58.21; 59.21; 60.21
bail deserve to be rejected and the same are rejected.
The applications stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 01/07/2024 18:27:07
