Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Nitin Raosaheb Hase vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2022

Author: C.V. Bhadang

Bench: C.V. Bhadang

                                                                        3-ba-1965-2021.doc




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1965 OF 2021

                     Nitin Raosaheb Hase                          ..Applicant
                          V/s.
                     The State of Maharashtra                     ..Respondent

                                                       ----

                     Mr. M. S. Mohite, Sr. Advocate i/b. Shantanu R. Phanse, for the
                     Applicant.
                     Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent/State.
                     PSI Sameer Dabhade & ASI Mohan Chormale, EOW.
        Digitally
                                                    ----
        signed by
MAMTA   MAMTA
        AMAR KALE
AMAR
                                                      CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
        Date:
KALE    2022.03.19
        14:39:47

                                                      DATE : 17 MARCH 2022
        +0530




                     P.C.
                     .        By this Application, the Applicant is seeking release on bail
                     in Crime No.209/2020 of Police Station Hinjewadi, District
                     Pune (transferred to EOW, Pune), under Section 406, 409 and
                     420 r/w. 34 of IPC.


                     2.       I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the
                     learned APP. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the
                     parties, I have gone through the record.




                            Mamta Kale                                               page 1 of 6
                                                 3-ba-1965-2021.doc


3.     The aforesaid crime is registered on the basis of the
complaint dated 4 March 2020 lodged by Sau. Rajashree Vani.
According to the informant, the co-accused had formed
'Megamind Tracker Consultancy Softech Private Limited' (said
company) at Indore (Madhya Pradesh), which had developed a
Software / Application called 'Lukchup'. Somewhere in May
2019, co-accused Vivek Khokrale and Sachin Jathar had
approached the informant, with a request to make investment
and do digital marketing of the APP on promise of 35 to 40% of
returns per month on the investment amount. The informant
was taken to the Pune office of the said company where she was
introduced to the Applicant alongwith Rupsingh Bishnoi and
Ankita Taraporewala. In short, according to the informant, all the
accused in furtherance of their conspiracy had induced the
informant and several others (whose names are set out in the
complaint) to invest various amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.15 Lakhs
in the digital marketing and generation of online traffic for the
said APP on promise of exorbitant returns which never
materialised. Informant claims that for some time she had done
digital marketing of the APP by generation of the online traffic
through an entity called 'Savi Infotech'. In so far as the present
Applicant is concerned, according to the informant, he was
introduced as Maharashtra Head of the said company.                  The
informant had also travelled to Indore and certain cheques were
given by way of security by assuring return of the amount.


     Mamta Kale                                              page 2 of 6
                                                    3-ba-1965-2021.doc


However, the amount was not returned.             According to the
informant, under the garb of the marketing of the mobile APP,
there was an illegal business of 'money rotation', which was
conducted.


4.     On basis of such a complaint, the offence came to be
registered and after investigation, the chargesheet is filed.


5.     The learned Senior counsel for the Applicant has submitted
that even as per the chargesheet the total amount received by the
Company on account of marketing done by the Applicant is to
the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the witnesses Babasaheb Datir,
Dinkar Gadakh, Alpesh Mehta and Dattatray Dusingh. In so far
as the Applicant is concerned, it is claimed that the Applicant had
admittedly received amount of Rs.54,56,310/-. According to the
Applicant, out of the said amount, he has incurred office expenses
and the expenses on employment of the staff etc. to the tune of
Rs.25,31,000/-.    Thus,     the   balance     amount       comes       to
Rs.29,25,310/-. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted
that the Applicant is ready and willing to deposit the said amount
if reasonable time is granted. It is pointed out that the Applicant
was arrested on 1 October 2020. It is further submitted that
none of the other accused have been arrested by the Investigating
Officer for reasons best known to him. It is submitted that the
investigation being complete and the chargesheet having been


     Mamta Kale                                                 page 3 of 6
                                                  3-ba-1965-2021.doc


filed, there is no justification for further detention of the
Applicant in custody pending trial.


6.     Learned APP has submitted that admittedly the Applicant
has received an amount of Rs.54,56,310/-. It is submitted that in
the event this Court is inclined to release the Applicant on bail,
the Applicant be directed to deposit the entire amount. A specific
query was         made to the learned APP as to what are the
circumstances in which none of the other co-accused have been
arrested. Learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating
Officer, submitted that they are absconding. However, it is not
disputed that no action for issuing a proclamation under Section
84 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the co-accused, nor any
proceedings under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999
have been initiated.


7.     I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
circumstances and the submissions made.


8.     As noticed earlier, the Applicant has admittedly received an
amount of Rs.54,56,310/-, out of which the Applicant claims that
he has incurred expenses of Rs.25,31,000/-. These expenses are
not part of the chargesheet or the investigation conducted by the
Investigating Officer. However, having regard to the fact that the


     Mamta Kale                                               page 4 of 6
                                                    3-ba-1965-2021.doc


investigation is complete and the chargesheet is filed and the
offences are triable by Magistrate inviting the maximum sentence
of seven years and further having regard to the fact that the
Applicant has shown willingness to deposit some amount to show
bonafides, I find that the Applicant can be released on bail, on
conditions.


9.     In the result, the following order is passed.
                          ORDER

(i) The Criminal Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) The Applicant Nitin Raosaheb Hase, be released on bail in Crime No.209/2020 of Police Station Hinjewadi, District Pune, on executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties, in the like amount.

(iii) The Applicant shall undertake to remain present before the learned Special Judge during the course of trial, unless exempted.

(iv) The Applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs before the Special Court. Out of said amount, Rs.20 Lakhs shall be deposited within two weeks from today and the balance amount shall be deposited within three months thereafter.

(v) The Applicant shall file an undertaking to that effect before the learned Special Judge.

     Mamta Kale                                                 page 5 of 6
                                             3-ba-1965-2021.doc


       (vi)     The Applicant shall furnish the details of

his movable and immovable property, if any (both joint and individual) to the Investigating Officer, within three weeks from today.

(vii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence / witnesses.

(viii) In the event of breach of any of the conditions including about the deposit of the amount, the bail shall stand cancelled without reference to the Court.

(ix) Bail bonds to be furnished before the learned Special Court.



                                 (C.V. BHADANG, J.)




Mamta Kale                                               page 6 of 6