Bombay High Court
Rajkumar S/O Vaijinathappa Glange vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2020
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
1 BA.1018-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2020
Rajkumar S/o Vaijinathappa Gulange ... Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. G. R. Syed.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde.
Advocate for Informant to assist APP : Mr. A. N. Sabnis.
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 21.10.2020
ORDER :-
1. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.454 of 2018 registered with Udgir (Rural) Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 424, 405, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. His application with similar prayer came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, vide order dated 19.08.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No.97 of 2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 :::
2 BA.1018-20.odt Informant Ganpatrao Sangappa Biradar has filed a Criminal Misc. Application No.392 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Classs, Udgir for seeking directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udgir by order in Criminal Misc. Application No.392 of 2018, directed the Officer In-charge of the Police Station Udgir (Rural) to register the offence against the present applicant and investigate the same as per the law. Accordingly, Police Station Udgir (Rural) has registered the Crime No.454 of 2018 against the applicant as detailed above. The informant and others as named in the complaint are the agriculturists by occupation and the applicant herein is the owner-cum-Proprietor of the godown name and styled as 'Swami Samarth Godown'. The informant and the other agriculturists named in the complaint, have kept their soyabean and other agricultural produce in the said godown owned by the applicant. It is stated that the said warehouse (godown) was given to one National Colateral Management Services Ltd. Pvt. Co. for a management purpose and the said company and its officers were looking after the management of the warehouse. In the year 2015, the ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 ::: 3 BA.1018-20.odt informant and the other agriculturists, named in the complaint had kept their soyabean to the extent of quantity, as mentioned in the complaint, respectively, in the said godown on monthly charges. It has been alleged in the complaint that the total quantity of soyabean is to the tune of Rs.1266 quintal and 21 k.g. According to the informant, the receipts to that effect have been issued by the warehouse authority. However, the applicant by preparing the forged documents played fraud on the informant and the agriculturists, the said National Colateral Management Services Ltd. and the bank. It is alleged that the applicant is illegally dispose of the stock, stored in the warehouse and thereby caused wrongful loss to the agriculturists. It has been alleged that the market value of the said quantity of soyabean is Rs.37,98,630/-. It has been alleged in the complaint that the applicant in collusion with his wife and other employees of the warehouse has shown the said soyabean of the informant and the other farmers in the name of the applicant, his wife and other staff members, hypothicated the said commodity with bank and obtained huge amount of loan.
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 :::
4 BA.1018-20.odt
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant and the other agriculturists have insituted suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 2018 for perpetual injunction in respect of the said quantity of soyabean kept in the warehouse. The informant and the other agriculturists sought the injunction against the applicant preventing him from disposing of the said stock of the soyabean kept in the warehouse. Applicant has filed Written Statement on 17.07.2018 and denied all the allegations. According to the applicant, the receipts produced by the informant and the other farmers are false to their knowledge and they have not kept any soyabean bags in his warehouse. The learned counsel submits that there is no documentary evidence to indicate that the informant and the agriculturists mentioned in the complaint owned and possessed the agricultural lands and they sown the soyabean in their respective agricultural lands during the period of 2014-2015. The learned counsel submits that all the allegations are false to the knowledge of the informant and further the said allegations are civil in nature. The learned counsel submits that Section 409 of the IPC neither mentioned in the FIR nor find place in the charge-sheet. The learned ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 ::: 5 BA.1018-20.odt counsel submits that the investigation is over and the charge- sheet has been submitted, thus further detention of the applicant in connection with the present crime is unwarranted and uncalled for. Further the civil suit is still pending for adjudication. The applicant is having a fixed place of residence. The applicant is easily available for trial. The applicant may be released on bail.
4. The learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that the offence is serious. The learned APP submits that the applicant and his wife are the owners of said "Swami Samarth Warehouse" and "Omkar Warehouse" situated at Udgir, respectively. The agriculturists used to store their raw material as well as process material, after harvesting, on a monthly charges of Rs.6/- per quintal. In view of the same, the informant and 12 others agriculturists approached the applicant and stored 1266.21 quintals soyabean in Swami Samarth Warehouse, in the year 2015. The receipts to that effect have been issued by the Godown Authority. The learned APP submits that the applicant has prepared the bogus receipts to indicate that the said stock belongs to himself, his wife and other employees of the warehouse. The applicant has ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 ::: 6 BA.1018-20.odt hypothicated this commodity with the bank and obtained huge amount of loan. In the year July-2017, the informant and the other agriculturists read the news in Daily Newspaper that, "the present applicant on the basis of the said stock of soyabean, availed the huge loan from the bank and thus cheated the bank". Thus, the informant and the said agriculturists demanded their soyabean back, however, the applicant has given evasive answers and refused to return their commodities. The learned APP submits that during the course of investigation, the statement of those twelve agriculturists were recorded. According to those farmers, they have stored their soyabean in the warehouse of the present applicant and accordingly the receipts have been issued by the godown authority. They have further stated that despite the demand, the applicant did not return their commodities. The market value of the said quantity of the soyabean is Rs.37,98,630/-. The learned APP submits that there is clear evidence that by preparing the forged and false documents, the applicant shown the said stock of soyabean in his name, his wife and staff members and obtained huge loan amount from the bank. The applicant has not only cheated the agriculturists but also ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 ::: 7 BA.1018-20.odt cheated the bank. The learned APP submits that prima facie, there is a strong case against the applicant. The applicant may not be released on bail.
5. On going through the allegations made in the complaint and on perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the informant and other 12 agriculturists have stored their soyabean commodities in the warehouse of the applicant on a monthly charges of Rs.6/- per quintal and the receipts have been issued to each of them by the warehouse / godown authority, which are the part of charge-sheet. It is not disputed that the applicant is the owner and Proprietor of the said warehouse / godown. It has been revealed during the course of investigation that the applicant has shown the said stock of soyabean commodity in his name, in the name of his wife and the other staff members and by hypothicating the same, obtained huge loan from the financial institution namely 'H.D.F.C. Bank'. It also appears that the applicant has made an attempt to sell the said stock of the commodities under the pretext of repayment of the said bank loan, the informant and the agriculturists instituted the Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 2018 and also filed an application seeking temporary ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 ::: 8 BA.1018-20.odt injunction. The learned Civil Judge Junior Division was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction vide order dated 20.02.2018. It has been alleged that despite the said order of injunction, the applicant-accused has managed to dispose of the said stock of soyabean commodity. The applicant and his wife have caused huge financial loss and cheated the agriculturists and even there is one another crime bearing No.107 of 2017 registered against the applicant and his wife. Though the charge under Section 409 of IPC is not specifically levelled, however, prima facie, there is an evidence about entrustment of the property with the applicant and the applicant has committed the criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property. Thus, the allegations and the evidence collected during the course of investigation attracts Section 409 of IPC. The informant and the agriculturists named in the complaint have not received the amount of their commodities, till this time. The applicant has managed to sell the commodities of stock under the legal excuses for repayment of the bank loan. Prima facie, there is a strong case against the applicant. The allegations are serious in nature. Thus, I am not ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 ::: 9 BA.1018-20.odt inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER The application is hereby rejected.
(V. K. JADHAV, J.) ...
vmk/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 23:44:44 :::