1 BA 1126-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1126 OF 2011 WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2011 Sanjeev Ganpat Prasad Bangad .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent And Nilesh Vallbhadas Dhanani .Original Complainant Mr.Amit Desai, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Filji Frederick and Ms Suvarna Joshi i/b.FF & Associates, for the Applicant/Intervener Mr.Rakesh Kumar i/b.Mr.Tejas Dande, Advocate, for the applicant in BA No.1126 of 2011 Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent  State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is the second bail application by an accused, who has been charge sheeted in 2 BA 1126-2011 connection with C.R.No.387 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 418, 420, 464, 467, 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. His previous application for bail came to be rejected along with applications for bail by Rajgopal Shridhar and the applicant's wife Rashmi Sanjeev Bangad by a common order dated 28th October, 2010. Thereafter, the applicant's wife Rashmi and co-accused Rajgopal Shridhar seem to have filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Rashmi Bangad's application was allowed on 25th April, 2011 and that of Rajgopal Shridhar was allowed by order dated 5th July, 2011. The learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that there is absolutely no reason why the applicant should be denied the same treatment. The learned APP as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the first informant  Company have a very serious objection to the applicant's 3 BA 1126-2011 being bailed out. The investigating officer has filed an elaborate affidavit opposing the bail application. Among other things, it is pointed out that even before Rajgopal Shridhar could avail of the bail granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he had attempted to transfer 2,50,000/- euros from the account in Swiss Bank to the account of a Company by name Deluxe Shine Limited, Hongkong. It was submitted that since Rajgopal Shridhar had, thus, committed a breach of Clause VII of the order on which he had been admitted to bail, bail order stood automatically cancelled. The learned Senior Counsel for the first informant  Company as well as the learned APP, therefore, submit that they apprehend similar mischief by the present applicant and therefore, want this application to be rejected. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the first informant  Company and the learned APP 4 BA 1126-2011 submitted that having rejected the application of the applicant on merits, there should be really no reason for this Court to entertain the second bail application, since there is no change in the circumstances. They submit that co-accused being admitted to bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a ground to justify the second bail application being entertained. 4. I have carefully considered these contentions. There can be no doubt that unless some change in the circumstances is shown, the second application for bail cannot be entertained. However, it would be difficult to contend that co-accused being admitted to bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after their prayer was rejected by this Court along with the prayer of the applicant by a common order, is not a change in the circumstances. It is not shown that the role of the present applicant is different or more 5 BA 1126-2011 serious than that of Rajgopal Shridhar, who has been admitted to bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, on the ground of parity the applicant too would be entitled to be bailed out. 5. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the first informant  Company and the learned APP that Rajgopal Shridhar had even while being in custody sought to transfer 2,50,000/- euros from the account of Swiss Bank to the account of a Company by name Deluxe Shine Limited, Hongkong indicates the possibility of the applicant too indulging in similar mischief. But they have not been able to point out that the applicant has committed similar mischief or his wife has indulged in such mischief. The learned Senior Counsel for the first informant  Company submits that the applicant's wife could not have tampered with the account, since she is not an account holder. All the same, since it is not shown 6 BA 1126-2011 that the applicant while in custody has indugled in mischief similar to that of Rajgopal Shridhar, though I have my own reasons for refusal of bail, which have been outlined in the order dated 28th October, 2010, about possibility of accused in such cases tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice, since co-accused have been admitted to bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is really no justification for denying bail to the present applicant. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the first informant  Company states that the prosecution is in dark about how many accounts the applicant has in foreign banks. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has only one account jointly with Rajgopal Shridhar and that too in the name of Company S.S.Ocean-wing. The learned Counsel for the applicant is not sure whether the applicant has other account in foreign 7 BA 1126-2011 bank. In that case, a suitable condition, which takes care of apprehension of the prosecution in this behalf may be imposed. 7. In view of this, Bail Application is allowed. Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.50,000,00/- with two solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs. 50,000,00/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the following conditions. i) The applicant shall mark his presence every day between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune, till the trial is over. ii) The applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000,00/- before he is actually released on bail. iii) The applicant shall execute appropriate assignment in favour of Government 8 BA 1126-2011 of India in respect of all his known and unknown accounts in banks outside India so that there is no question of applicant's being entitled or able to operate such account. iv) The passport of the applicant, if any, shall be suspended till the trial is over. v) The applicant shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that he will not operate any of his accounts without leave of the trial Court till the conclusion of the trial. The applicant shall not leave Pune without leave of the trial Court. vi) Any attempt to tamper with the evidence or flee from Course of justice would result in automatic cancellation of the order passed. The learned Counsel for the applicant prays for reduction of the amount to be deposited. 9 BA 1126-2011 Prayer is rejected. 8. Bail Application stands disposed of. 9. In view of disposal of Bail Application, Miscellaneous Application does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)