Bombay High Court
Deepak Dnyandev Bhosale And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2020
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2328 OF 2019
Deepak Dnyandev Bhosale & Anr. ...Applicants
V/s
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
------
Sumant Deshpande for the applicants.
Geeta P Mulekar APP for the State/Respondent.
(I.O.) - PSI - Mr. Eknath T. Bhoir, Economic Ofences Wing,
Nashik.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 3rd JANUARY, 2020
PC :
1. The applicants are accused in connection with CR. No.
66 of 2017 registered with Pimpalgaon Police Station,
Nashik for ofences punishable under Sections 420, 504,
506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short). The
First Information Report ('FIR' for short) was lodged on
10.05.2017. The investigation was transferred to EOW,
Nashik. Subsequently, Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 120(B)
were added. The applicants were arrested on 13.09.2018.
The co-accused Dnyandev Bhosale was arrested on
14.09.2018. Eight other accused were arrested.
2. The FIR was lodged by Rajendra Dattatray Boraste
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
2 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
alleging that he conducts business of cold storage by name
'Saco Fruits'. He provides cold storage facilities for
preserving grapes to the businessman on rental basis. In
2011, the complainant was approached by applicants and
represented that they are involved in the business of
exporting grapes to foreign countries and also import the
goods from foreign countries. They are holding license for
conducting such business. The complainant was taken into
confidence by giving rosy picture of their business. The
accused also informed the complainant that they intend to
purchase grapes from Nashik District for the purpose to
export. In view of that it was necessary to store the grapes
in cold storage and to export the same by packing. The
complainant agreed to allow the applicants to let out the
cold storage facilities to them. They also executed
agreement. The accused also paid the rent to the
complainant. In 2013, the accused again approached
complainant for cold storage facilities for grapes. The
complainant agreed for the same in view of the earlier
transactions. Agreement was executed on 18.02.2013.
Thereafter, the accused purchased grapes from various
farmers and stored the same in the cold storage facilities of
the complainant, thereafter exported them through their
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
3 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
container. Several persons were supervising, the work of
storage on behalf of the D. P. Sales Corporation from
18.02.2013 to 24.04.2013. The rent and the cost towards
the same was Rs. 88,19,987/-. The accused issued several
cheques in favour of complainant towards storage and cost.
Some of the cheques were honored. Part payment was also
made through RTGS. The complainant received amount of
Rs. 37 Lakhs. The cheque dated 25.03.2013 for amount of
Rs. 10 lakhs was dishonored. The complainant was
deceived for an amount of Rs. 51,19,987/-. The accused
also executed transactions with the parents of the
complainant for purchasing grapes. The cheques issued in
their favour were dishonored. It was alleged that the
accused had also deceived farmers. They had also foated
companies abroad and cases were registered against them.
3. The applicants and the co-accused Dnyandev Bhosale
(Father of applicants) had preferred an application for
Anticipatory Bail which were rejected. The applicants and
the co-accused thereafter, preferred Special Leave Petition
Bearing No. 7226 of 2017 before the Supreme Court
seeking Anticipatory Bail by order dated 22.09.2018. The
petition was allowed. It was directed that upon furnishing
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
4 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court within one
week, the petitioners therein be granted bail subject to
appropriate conditions. Subsequently, MA. No. 1480 of
2017 was preferred for recalling the order dated
22.09.2017. However, by order dated 14.09.2017, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there is no ground to
interfere with the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the
Court. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court the applicants and Co-accused Dnyandev Krishnaji
Bhosale preferred an application before the Court at JMFC at
Pimpalgaon for releasing him on bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Court subject to appropriate conditions.
The learned JMFC by order dated 27.09.2017 directed that
the applicants be released on bail on executing PB and SB
of Rs. 50,000/- each. They were also directed to deposit
cash security of Rs. 15,000/- each, in addition to surety
bond. It was further directed that the applicants should not
temper the prosecution evidence and witnesses. They
should co-operate with the investigating ofcer for
investigation of alleged crime. The applicants and co-
accused should attend Pimpalgaon police station every 10 th
day of each month between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till
filling of charge-sheet or till further order whichever is
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
5 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
earlier.
4. The prosecution preferred an application for
cancellation of bail granted to the applicants before the
court of learned JMFC, Pimpalgaon. On 16.07.2018 the
learned Magistrate issued notice to the accused. The
application for cancellation of bail was heard by the court.
The grievance of the investigating machinery was that the
accused neither came before the police station nor
cooperated in the investigation and due to their absence
investigation is pending. The learned Magistrate by order
dated 24.08.2018 allowed the said application, on the
ground that due to absence of applicants investigation is
pending. It was further observed that the applicants have
not fulfilled the conditions of bail and notices were issued to
the accused for their presence. However, they did not
secure their presence. They had avoided their appearance
before the Investigating Agency. The bail order was
cancelled and non-bailable-warrant was issued against
applicants.
5. The applicants had preferred an application for
cancellation of non-bailable-warrant on 28.08.2018. In the
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
6 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
said application, it was contended that the the surety of the
applicants have preferred an application for withdrawing
their surety bond and notice in regard to their issued by the
Court. In pursuance to withdrawal of surety bond, the
prosecution had preferred an application for cancellation of
bail. It was also contended that the applicants are willing to
furnish fresh surety bond. They are willing to abide by the
conditions. By order dated 11.09.2018 the Court rejected
the application preferred by the applicants.
6. The applicants were taken into custody on 13.09.2018.
The applicants thereafter preferred an application for bail
before the Sessions Court. The said application was
rejected by the Sessions Court by order dated 14.03.2019.
7. The learned Advocate for applicants submitted that
the bail was cancelled on the ground that the applicants
had not attended police station as directed by the Sessions
Court. It is further submitted that there is delay in lodging
the FIR. The applicants had executed the bail bond in
pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court and
thereafter by the trial Court, however, the sureties had
preferred an application for withdrawal of surety bond. It is
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
7 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
further submitted that in pursuant to the grant of bail to the
applicants, similar FIR were registered against the
applicants and they apprehended their arrest in the event
they attend the police station. It is submitted that the
applicants are in custody from 13.09.2018. The applicants
are willing to abide by the conditions.
8. Learned APP submitted that the applicants had
deceived the farmers and the complainant. The cold
storage facilities charges of the first informant were not
paid. The applicants had not abided the conditions of
reporting and had not co-operated with the investigation.
Huge amount is involved in the transaction executed by the
applicants. Several cases were registered against the
applicants. Some of the cases are similar CR. No. I-22 of
2018 was registered with Dindori Police Station for ofences
punishable under Sections 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 465,
468, 471, 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPC. CR No. I-09 of 2018 was
registered with Ozar Police Station, Nashik for the ofences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPC. CR. No. I-32 of 2018 was
registered with Pimpalgaon Police Station, Nashik for the
ofences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B), 504,
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
8 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
506 r/w. 34 of IPC. It is submitted that the accused
misappropriated huge amount in all these cases.
9. The transaction in question spelt out in the complaint
was in respect of cold storage charges, due to first
informant. The impugned transaction was executed vide
agreement dated 18.02.2013 and the period of transaction
was 18.02.2013 and 24.04.2013. The applicants had
allegedly used cold storage of the informant. The accused
had paid an amount of Rs. 37 lakhs. According to
complainant the balance amount of Rs. 51,91,987/- was not
paid to the complainant. The investigation is completed
and charge-sheet is filed. It is pertinent to note that the
applicants were granted bail by the Apex Court upon
furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It
is also noted that the said order was confirmed by the Apex
Court on 14.12.2017. The applicants preferred an
application before the trial Court in the light of direction by
the Apex Court. The applicants were directed to be
released on bail on certain terms and conditions. The bail
sought to be cancelled on the ground that the applicants
did not attend the police station as directed by the trial
Court. The condition No. (iv) refected in bail order passed
Ganesh Lokhande
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::
9 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
by the trial Court in that accused should attend Pimpalgaon
police station every 10th day of each month between 11.00
a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till filling of charge-sheet or till further
order whichever is earlier. The bail was cancelled for non-
complying the same condition. The applicants is in custody
since more than a year. As stated above the charge-sheet
is already filed. In these circumstances, further detention of
the applicants are not called for. Nothing is brought on
record about any prosecution launched against applicants
abroad. The applicants had also sought bail in CR. No. I-
22/2018, I-09/2018 and I-32/2018 vide BA No. 1659/2019,
BA No. 1299/2019 and BA No. 1160/2019.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I passed the following
order.
ORDER
(i) Bail Application No. 2328 of 2019, is allowed;
(ii) The applicants are directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 66 of 2017, registered with Pimpalgao Police Station, Nashik, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, each with one or more sureties in the like amount;
Ganesh Lokhande ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 ::: 10 of 10 BA-2328-2019.doc
(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and witnesses;
(iv) The applicants shall attend trial court regularly on date of hearing of case, unless exempted by Court.
(iv) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Ganesh Lokhande ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 08:57:37 :::