1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.42/2011 & Criminal Application No.1126/2010 & Criminal Application No.1286/2010 ( Pramod S/o Kajodimal Agrawal ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through Addl. Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Nagpur ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv. for applicant. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 29.6.2011. 1. The applicant has been chargesheeted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur by the Police Inspector, Crime Branch Nagpur for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 80 of the Indian Registration Act, arising out of Crime No.214/2009 registered at the police station Sitabuldi, Nagpur on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Mr. Ranjan Bijwe, Sub-Registrar (under Registration Act), Khamla, Nagpur. 2. It is the prosecution case that during the period from 5/3/2007 to 30/6/2007 the present applicant and his other associates entered into conspiracy to create forged instruments of sale and by using them as genuine to commit the offences of cheating. On the basis of the 2 original document bearing No.4249/2005 dated 4/7/2005, prepared 22 bogus instruments and got them registered. These documents pertain to 88 plots, area 23760 Sq. Meter. Although in the instrument name of the present applicant appear, his photograph was substituted with the photograph of the other co-accused by name Balkrushna Gavankar. On the basis of these bogus sale deeds the mutations were carried out. Thereafter these plots were sold. 3. After filing of the chargesheet the applicant moved bail application being Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.685/2010 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, which came to be rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 29/6/2010. Thereafter applicant moved this Court. 4. The Criminal Case No.2492/2009 under sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Crime No.57/2009 registered at the police station Kotwali – Nagpur and the Criminal Case No.2727/2009 under sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Crime No.83/2009 registered at the police station Dhantoli – Nagpur are pending against the present applicant. In those cases, the bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Therefore, he approached this Court. This Court (Coram : A.H. Joshi, J.) rejected his prayer to release him on bail, however he was granted temporary bail, with the following observations. “It is prima facie seen that it is a case where the multiplication of money deposited by various persons is under serious doubt. It is prima facie 3 seen that the money has been invested in the landed property. If the applicant succeeds in mobilizing the things and preparing the proposal for repayment to the depositors, it may give solace to the depositors. However, this aspect can be tested only if the applicant is released on bail and not otherwise” 5. This order was quoted while arguing the Criminal Application No.1286/2010 (arising out of Crime No.214/2009 and Regular Criminal Case No.4122/2009). This Court (Coram : Prasanna B. Varale, J.) granted temporary bail by order dated 24th September 2010 by observing as follows. “It is not in dispute that the money of the public at large is involved in the matter and if the applicant is granted some time so as to mobilize the things and make some attempts to see that the proposal for repayment to the depositors get some fruits. In view of above, I am inclined to grant temporary bail for 45 days to the applicant on certain conditions” 6. On 14th December 2010 this Court (Coram : Prasanna B. Varale, J.) has considered the issue of further extension of temporary bail and observed “in view of the above mentioned facts, in my opinion, as the applicant is making some efforts and expressing his willingness to deposit an amount of rupees one crore to show his bona fides, it will be appropriate to give one more opportunity to the applicant. The applicant is directed to deposit an amount of rupees one crore in this Court on or before 17th January, 2011.” 7. Again temporary bail order was extended from time to time. This 4 Court by order dated 27/6/2011 rejected the bail applications moved before this Court by the applicant pertaining to Crime No.83/2009, registered at the police station Dhantoli, Nagpur under sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( Regular Criminal Case No.2727/2009) and pertaining to Crime No.57/2009, under sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at the police station Kotwali ( Regular Criminal Case No. 2492/2009). The said criminal cases are pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The purpose of granting bail in this matter was to enable the applicant to mobilize the funds and preparing the proposal for repayment to the depositors in those cases. In sequel to the order granting temporary bail passed in those two cases, the application for temporary bail was considered in this case. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in his order dated 29/6/2010 observed “on perusal of case papers it is quite clear that thee is prima facie evidence to connect the applicant with his crime. It also appears that the applicants with common intention prepared forged documents i.e. Sale Deeds of 88 plots and presented the same before the informant by giving false statement that the said false documents are true. The large amount of Rs.7 crore 30 lacs is involved in this case. The offence alleged is serious one.” 9. It is the case of the applicant that he is completely innocent. 5 The co-accused Balkrushna Gavankar is responsible for act of forgery and fraud alleged by the prosecution. On the basis of the genuine sale deeds executed in favour of the applicant by one Mr. Malapure - the original owner, Balkrushna - the co-accused prepared false documents. He was earlier working in the revenue department. He is the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions. The applicant had hardly any opportunity to know about the fraudulent intention of said Balkrushna. He, therefore, prayed for releasing him on bail. After he was granted temporary bail, he made all possible efforts to make refund of the deposits. Learned A.P.P. filed affidavit in reply in the connected matters and in this matter. This is sworn in by one Mr. Bahadure, P.I. Crime Branch, Nagpur. The claim made by the applicant that after he was released on temporary bail, he made all endeavours to mobilize the funds and refund the deposits to the possible extent to the various depositors has been denied. This reply is considered by this Court in the connected matter. 10. The facts of the present case in a nutshell are that the applicant entered into conspiracy with Balkrushna Gavankar to forge the documents and on that basis committed the offences of cheating. On the instrument bearing Registration No.4249/2005, presumably, executed in favour of the applicant by the original owner there was appearing photograph of the applicant. This was substituted with the photograph of said Balkrushna Gavankar. Then they changed the plot 6 numbers mentioned in the original instrument. On that basis mutations were carried out showing said Balkrushna Gavankar as a owner. Thereafter the sale deeds were prepared showing Blakrushna Gavankar as owner of the property and the present applicant as purchaser. They were presented before the Sub-Registrar and got them registered. In all 22 instruments were prepared in respect of 88 plots. According to learned A.P.P. these 88 plots are not at all in existence. For that an amount of Rs.7 Crore 30 Lacks was withdrawn by the applicant from the accounts of Kalmana Urban Co-operative Society. Here it is necessary to clarify that by making false promises to the public at large huge deposits were obtained in the name of said Kalmana Urban Co-operative Society and for that applicant is facing prosecution. 11. Prima facie the applicant is involved in the offences of collecting funds worth crores of rupees (Criminal Case Nos.2492/2009 and 2727/2009) from the general public with an object of making quick or easy money and for that gullible public was invited to invest in the Credit Co-operative Society and the Company floated by him. Again he indulged in preparing the forged instruments and getting them registered for the same purpose. There is a potential threat to the society and chances of he tampering with the witnesses cannot be ruled out. 12. The prayers of the applicant to release him on regular 7 bail and or temporary bail are rejected. 13. The applications are rejected. 14. If the trial of this case is not over within a period of one year, the applicant shall be at liberty to move the appropriate Court for bail. 15. Two weeks’ time to surrender to the bail bonds in Criminal Cases No.4122/2009 is granted to the applicant. JUDGE Tambaskar.