jpc appln1611-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1611 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Pawan Radheyshyam Kejriwal ... Respondent Mr. S. D. Shinde, APP for the applicant-State Mr. D. K. Singh, i/by Mr. Rishi Bhuta, for the respondent. Mr. Bharat Shelke, DYSP, ACB, Thane-present. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 21st July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP for the applicant-State, Mr. Bhuta, the learned advocate for the respondent and also Mr. Bharat Shelke, Dy. S.P. , A.C.B, Thane. 2. The applicant- the State of Maharashtra- is feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, releasing the respondent who is an accused in C.R. No.9 of 2010 of the Palghar Poolice Station, on bail. The said CR is in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 406, 465,467, 468, 420, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as also for the offences punishable under the Sales Tax Act. jpc appln1611-10.sxw 2 3. In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss the allegations levelled against the respondent and other accused in depth. In brief, it may be observed that the respondent is an advocate by profession and a sales tax practitioner. In collusion with some sales tax officers, he is alleged to have managed to forge and fabricate refund orders. He is alleged to have defrauded the Exchequer for an amount of about Rs.11 crores. There is sufficient material to show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. Some blank, but signed refund orders were recovered from his office. Further, the statements of the directors and officers of some Companies, who are said to be the clients of the respondent were recorded in the course of investigation. These statements throw light on the dishonest transactions, in which the applicant is involved. 4. I have gone through the bail order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar. I do not see any serious application of mind on the part of the learned Judge, who has merely made observations of a general nature to the effect that 'the documents had been seized' and 'it was not likely that the respondent would tamper with the evidence, if released on bail,' etc. It was also stated that the applicant would be available for trial and therefore, there was no need to deny bail to him. jpc appln1611-10.sxw 3 5. The learned Judge observed only the general principles regarding grant of bail, but failed to grasp the facts of the case properly. Had he done so, he would have realised that the offences are of a great magnitude involving several persons including the officers from the sales tax department. He could have also realised that deeper investigation would reveal further and more cases of such defrauding and involvement of more persons, if any. It was also to be necessary to trace the money that has been illegally obtained by committing the alleged offences by the respondent and the other accused. 6. Considering the nature of the offence, the magnitude thereof, and the existence of a strong prima facie case against the respondent, the learned Judge should have authorised further detention of the respondent in custody at that stage of the matter. His detention would have facilitated the investigation. On a prima facie view of the matter, the bail order does not seem to be proper at all. 7. The question, however, is whether the bail granted should be cancelled at this distance of time. Apparently, the state has filed the application for cancellation of bail within about two months from the date of release of the respondent on bail, but the application has remained pending before this Court for quite some time. At this distance of time, even if the bail is cancelled, the same would not assist jpc appln1611-10.sxw 4 the investigation or advance the cause of justice any further. Instead, I would think it proper to enhance the amount of bail and also to direct the respondent to be available to the investigating agency regularly for a sufficient time, so that the investigation can be effectively carried out. 8. It is informed that the applicant is also an accused in CR No.92 of 2010, registered at Palghar Police Station. There is a grievance that the applicant is not available to the police in that case, and that he is avoiding the arrest. This submission is challenged by the learned advocate for the respondent, who submits that the respondent is very much available at his address and that the investigating agency has not made any efforts to secure his presence, or arrest him. I do not wish to go into that controversy, in view of the order that is being passed on this application. The applicant and the investigating agency can handle the matter pertaining to CR No. 92/2010, separately and independently. 9. The amount of bail is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five laks ). The applicant may furnish one or two sureties to make up the enhanced bail amount within a period of two weeks from today. 10. The respondent shall attend the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane, every day at 11.00 a.m., excluding Sundays and jpc appln1611-10.sxw 5 Holidays, and be available to the investigating agency for the purpose of interrogation/investigation till 5.00 p.m., if so required by the Investigating Officer. The respondent shall so attend for a period of one month commencing from 25th July,l 2011. 11. Even thereafter, the respondent shall attend the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 12. In view of this direction, it is not necessary to cancel the bail granted to the respondent. 13. It is made clear that should the respondent fail to report to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane on 25th July, 2011 as directed above, the bail order in his favour shall stand automatically cancelled, unless such failure is by a reason of actually being in custody of police or some other investigating agency or the custody of the court. 14. The application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)