Bombay High Court
Riddhi Kashyap Parikh vs Cbi, Eob, Mumbai And Anr on 16 February, 2022
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
Digitally
signed by
VINA VINA ARVIND
KHADPE
ARVIND Date:
KHADPE 2022.02.17
15:00:30
+0530
Vina Khadpe (501) ba.st.2803.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.2803 OF 2022
Riddhi Kashyap Parikh .... Applicant
Versus
CBI, EOB and anr. .... Respondents
Mr.Ashok M. Sarogi, for the Applicant.
Smt. Rutuja Ambekar , APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2022
P.C. :
1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. The Applicant has made a prayer for bail. However, during
the arguments, Mr. Sarogi, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted
that he is making the prayer in the nature of Anticipatory Bail
Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. because as of today the
Applicant is not arrested.
3. The matter is taken on production board considering the
urgency mentioned by Mr. Sarogi. The learned counsel was asked to
serve the contesting party i.e. Respondent No.1 - CBI, EOB, Mumbai.
Learned counsel has produced the covering letter showing that the
service is done on the contesting Respondent No.1. Thus, the said letter
is taken on board and marked as "x" for identification.
1 of 5
Vina Khadpe (501) ba.st.2803.2022.doc
4. I have considered this matter on production board for grant
or rejection of urgent relief. Mr. Sarogi submitted that the Applicant has
three years old child. She is not arrested for more than one and half
years during the investigation and only at the time of filing of the
chargesheet when she presented herself, the Bail Application filed by
her was rejected. Learned counsel produced two orders each dated 14 th
February, 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge(CBI). Learned
counsel submitted that because of extreme urgency, he has filed this
Application and these two orders are not annexed to the Application.
Both orders are taken on record and marked as "x1" and "x2".
5. I have perused the said orders dated 14 th February, 2022.
The facts of the prosecution case is reflected in the order dated 14 th
February, 2022 passed in Bail Application (Ext.21) in CBI Case No.1266
of 2021. The case appears to be that some private persons in collusion
with Bank Officers obtained huge loan on vehicles. The vehicles were
actually not purchased. The transactions were fraudulent and thus
huge loss was caused to the Bank. As far as the Applicant is concerned,
there are allegations that she had obtained loans on two cars of Rs.20
lakh each on the basis of forged and fabricated documents as she had
not purchased those cars. She has diverted the loan amount for her
personal use. After giving sufficient reasons, her bail Application
2 of 5
Vina Khadpe (501) ba.st.2803.2022.doc
(Exh.21) was rejected.
6. On the same date, another order was passed in Interim Bail
Application (Exh.74) in CBI Special Case No.1266 of 2021 by the same
learned Judge. Thereby, her Interim Bail Application (Exh.74) was
allowed and she was released on Interim Bail till the order on second
regular bail application (Exh.73). She was directed to remain present
on each and every date 'till the order' (as mentioned in the order) on
second regular bail application (Exh.73). In the said order, the
submission was made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the
Applicant that she has three year old son and a statement was recorded
on her behalf that she would deposit the entire loan amount within the
period of one week and she would deposit 50% amount on 16 th
February, 2022 and remaining 50% amount before 21st February, 2022.
That undertaking was accepted by the learned Judge. The learned
Judge had shown leniency to the Applicant and interim bail was
granted by considering the reasons mentioned in the Application. The
Applicant now is not in position to comply with the undertaking given
to the learned Judge as the time period to deposit loan amount which
was offered by the Applicant was very short.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that it is
practically impossible for her to comply with her own undertaking
3 of 5
Vina Khadpe (501) ba.st.2803.2022.doc
because her husband is arrested in the same case. He is in jail. There is
no one to look after her family. She has three years old child. She would
make every effort. She had all the intentions to comply with her
undertaking, but she needs further time. He submitted that leniency be
shown to her by giving her protection and in the meantime she can be
directed to attend the Court as well as the investigating agency.
8. Considering these submissions, I am inclined to protect the
Applicant. It is noted that the contesting Respondent No.1 is not
represented by counsel in the Court today. It is necessary to hear
arguments of Respondent No.1. But considering that from tomorrow the
Applicant is in real apprehension of arrest, she needs to be protected till
the next date.
9. Hence the following order :
ORDER
(i) Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
(ii) Office to give number to this matter under the caption of Anticipatory Bail Application.
(iii) The Applicant is permitted to deposit 50% of the amount mentioned in the order passed in Interim Bail Application (Exh.74) in CBI Special Case No.1266 of 2021 within a period of three weeks from today and the balance amount 4 of 5 Vina Khadpe (501) ba.st.2803.2022.doc within a period of two weeks thereafter, before the trial Court.
(iv) In the event of her arrest in connection with FIR No. RC0682020E005 registered with CBI/EOB Mumbai, till the next date the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(v) The Applicant shall attend the concerned investigating agency twice a week.
(vi) The Applicant shall attend the trial on each date before the learned Judge.
(vii) The Applicant shall deposit her passport, if not already deposited with investigating agency, within a period of two days from today.
(viii) The contesting Respondent-CBI is at liberty to seek modification of this order by moving before this Court, by giving prior notice to the Applicant.
(ix) This order shall operate till 23rd March, 2022.
(x) Stand over to 23rd March, 2022.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 5 of 5