Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O. Ramdas Ingle vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 March, 2020
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
19 aba187 20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2020
Vijay s/o Ramdas Ingle,
Age 33 years, Occ. Private
Service, R/o. Risod, Dist.
Washim. ... Applicant.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Investigation Officer,
Nanalpeth Police Station,
District Parbhani. ... Respondent.
...
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam
Mustafa.
A.P.P. for the respondent : Mr. R.V. Dasalkar.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 04/03/2020 PER COURT :
The applicant is seeking bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 322/2016, registered with Nanalpeth police station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of the Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred as to 'MPID Act')
2. In substance the allegations as can be made out from the F.I.R. lodged on 13.07.2016 and the police papers are to the effect that an establishment by name Maitreya Plotters & Structures Private Limited was floated by the prime accused. The public was lured to invest money by promising high returns however, it turned out to be a 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:10 ::: 19 aba187 20.odt hoax. The moneys were never returned and the F.I.R. is lodged by one of the investors who herself was also acting at the behest of the company.
3. It is necessary to note that one of the Directors Mr. Janardhan Parulekar alone could be arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against him. By the judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the designated Court under the MPID Act he has been acquitted of all other charges except Section 3 of the MPID Act under which he has been convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months.
4. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that even according to the prosecution the applicant was merely a branch manager of the company at Parbhani. Being an employee of the company, he has merely discharged the duty of operating its branch. It could be that in the process, as a part of duty he might have promoted various schemes of the company. However, he cannot be attributed with any dishonest intention. There is no allegation about he having gained wrongfully. Being an employee he would not be liable under the provisions of the MPID Act. Since main accused has been acquitted of all the other charges under the Indian Penal Code, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
5. The learned advocate for the applicant further submits that the applicant had never absconded. It is without his knowledge, a charge-sheet came to be filed under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is ready to cooperate the Investigating Officer and may be granted anticipatory bail.
2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:10 :::19 aba187 20.odt
6. The learned A.P.P. opposes the application. He submits that it is an economic offence and has to be looked at seriously. The applicant has lured the investors by promising handsome returns thereby indirectly benefiting the company in deriving wrongful gain. His custodial interrogation is necessary. He has been absconding and it is at a convenient and opportune movement that he has approached the Court seeking an extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail and the application may be rejected.
7. I have carefully gone through the papers. Even according to the prosecution the applicant was serving as a Manager of the branch at Parbhani and was not a Director of the company. Prima facie there are no allegations about he having discharged his duty with some dishonest intention and lured the investors and allowed the company to gain wrongfully. There are also no allegations about the applicant having derived any financial benefit over and above the salary that was paid to him.
8. As is mentioned herein above one of the Directors has been acquitted by the designated Court of all the offences charged under the Indian Penal Code and he has been convicted simply under Section 3 of the MPID Act. The applicant was merely an employee of the company and there is a serious dispute if an employee of a financial establishment can be imposed with any punishment under the Act.
9. Again, prima-facie nothing is to be discovered and recovered from him. It is the Directors of the Company who would primarily be liable under the provisions of MPID Act. Except one other directors are still at large.
3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:10 :::19 aba187 20.odt
10. Considering all the aforementioned aspects, the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
11. The application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with Crime No. 322/2016, registered with Nanalpeth police station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of the Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, he shall be released on bail on his execution a personal recognizance for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing a solvent surety in the like amount subject to the following conditions :
(a) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating officer and shall cooperate the investigation.
(b) He shall not tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses.
( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) mkd 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:10 :::