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 5, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sambhaji Baburao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 February, 2021

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

                                                                                                 40-ABA-221-2021.doc




                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2021

                                  Sambhaji Baburao Patil                                   ... Applicant

                                            Versus

                                  The State of Maharashtra                                 ... Respondent
                                                                   .....
                                  Mr. Ravin Bhuttar i/b Mr. Vijay Shinde, Advocate for the Applicant.
                                  Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                                                   .....

                                                                 CORAM        :     PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                                                                 DATE         :     11th FEBRUARY, 2021

                                  PER COURT:


                                  1.                 This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection

                                  with C.R. No. 2 of 2021 registered with Crime Branch, C.B.D.

                                  Belapur for the offences under Sections 420, 294(A) r/w Section 34

                                  of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(A), 5 of the Maharashtra

                                  Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and                 Section 66(d) of the

                                  Information Technology Act, 2000.


                                  2.                 The case of the prosecution is that, raid was conducted

                                  on 31st December, 2020 at Shop Nos. 7, 8 & 9 situated at Mini

                                  Market, Sector-6, C.B.D., Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The raid was

Manish      Digitally signed by
            Manish S. Thatte
                                  conducted on receipt of secret information about illegal Lottery
S. Thatte   Date: 2021.02.17
            10:44:33 +0530



                                  Center. The applicant is the owner of the block Nos. 7, 8 & 9. At the

                                  Sajakali Jamadar                       1 of 5
                                                                      40-ABA-221-2021.doc




time of raid it was found that the accused in collusion with S.B.S.

Broking & Trading Auctioning Centre (OPC) Pvt. Ltd and Avishkar

Broking            and     Trading    Co.     were      running    illegal    online

gambling/lottery through computers on pretext of online rice auction

centre. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on the spot. They were

employees of applicant, who were operating the computers. The

source of softwares and data of computers seized from the spot is to

investigated.            The   applicant    had      obtained   dealership    online

gambling/lottery from Avishkar online marketing. Various criminal

cases were registered against the Avishkar online marketing.


3.                  The applicant had preferred an application before the

Sessions Court which has been rejected by order date 18 th January,

2021.


4.                  Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that no

specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant had

obtained dealership from the two companies in respect of online

auction. In accordance with agreement he purchased softwares from

those companies and accepting amount from the customers towards

auction of rice. The arrested accused are released on bail. The

articles were seized. The receipts of other items were found on the

spot. Nothing is required to be recovered. The applicant had no



Sajakali Jamadar                            2 of 5
                                                         40-ABA-221-2021.doc




knowledge whether the rice is actually delivered to the customers or

not. The applicant is victim at the instance of S.B.S. Broking &

Trading Auctioning Centre (OPC) Pvt. Ltd and Avishkar Broking and

Trading Co. online. The applicant had filed complaint against

Avishkar Broking and Trading Co. online on 5 th January, 2021. It is

further submitted that in 2004, the applicant had deposited the

amount for retail Lottery Centre namely Rajshree Lottery as retailer

to Avishkar Co. He had handled the lottery centre under instructions

of the distributor. He was given understanding that the business

operated is legal and Avishkar Group is permitted to perform such

business. In September, 2020 Avishkar Group proposed to carry

forward S.B.S. Auction machines from S.D.S. Broking and Trading

Auctioning Center Pvt. Ltd. in spite of Rajshree Lottery. The Avishkar

Group informed the applicant and ensured that the auction machine

was legally authorized by the government and provided documents

in that regard. The applicant believed the particulars stated by

Avishkar Group and continued on the deposit made by him to the

distributor for the said machine and business set up. He had no

intention to deceive the Government or any authority. The said shop

was provided by Avishkar Group. The transactions and the amount

for trading mentioned in the order passed by the learned Sessions

Judge has not relevance to the accused. Except Section 420 of Indian


Sajakali Jamadar                3 of 5
                                                                  40-ABA-221-2021.doc




Penal Code, all other offences are bailable.


5.                  Learned APP submitted that the applicant's involvement

is disclosed. Investigation revealed the complicity of applicant in the

crime. He pointed out investigation papers and the statements of the

witnesses. It is submitted that the statements of the persons who had

visited the lottery center indicate that several persons were indulging

in lottery by providing number. When the police raided, they were

questioned about their presence. They were asked whether auction

of rice is going on at the said centre. The witnesses stated that no

such auction is being operated and the customers are playing lottery

with single digit number. He further submitted that the statements of

witnesses would also indicate that The applicant is involved in

conducting this Lottery Centre.


6.                  The investigation is in progress. From the FIR and the

investigation paper it can be seen that the prosecution case is that

the applicant is involved in the crime. The premises were raided. The

applicant contends that, he had no knowledge of real nature of

business. However, the case of the prosecution is that it was revealed

on verification of data that, in between 19 th December, 2020 to 10th

January,           2021,   the   company   had   carried   out    trading        of

Rs. 10,97,00,000/- but no rice is delivered to anyone. This, shows



Sajakali Jamadar                       4 of 5
                                                                40-ABA-221-2021.doc




that the applicant has willingly indulged in business of online

gambling/lottery under the pretext of online auction of rice. It was

also alleged that the scope of transaction is very wide and huge

amount is involved. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I find

that this is not the fit case to grant relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Hence, I pass

the following order:


                                     ORDER

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 221 of 2021 is rejected and stands disposed off accordingly.

7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.





                                                  (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)




Sajakali Jamadar                       5 of 5