1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR .... (1) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3031/2009 {Gajanan s/o Liladhar Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra } AND (2) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3032/2009 {Gajanan s/o Liladhar Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra } AND (3) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3033/2009 {Ashish Vijay Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra } AND (4) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3034/2009 {Ashish Vijay Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra } AND (5) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3035/2009 {Mukesh Ramratan Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra } AND (6) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3036/2009 {Mukesh Ramratan Agrawal vs. State of Maharashtra } Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr Shyam Dewani, Adv for for applicants in all the applications. Mrs S.S. Wandile, APP for Respondent-State in all the applications. C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 8 th September, 2009. 1. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties, at length. 2. Criminal Application Nos. 26/2009, 29/2009; 30/2009; 31/2009; 32/2009; 39/2009; 34/2009; 35/2009/; 38/2009 and 39/2009 for dispensing with certified copy of the impugned order/ FIR are allowed. 2 3. The applicants in the above-referred applications, prayed for grant of bail in connection with Crime Nos. 83/2009; 57/2009; 83/2009; 57/2009; 57/2009 and 83/2009 respectively, reported at Dhantoli and Kotwali Police Stations, Nagpur, for offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. According to the learned Advocate for the applicants, the charge- sheet have already been filed in respect of Crime No. 83/2009 and 57/2009. The applicants had also undergone the period of custodial interrogation, as permitted by the competent Remand Court and are presently in jail since long. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the applicants are well educated, peace-loving and law-abiding citizens and implicated in these cases on account of alleged misappropriation and criminal breach of the trust,inasmuch as they are office-bearers of Kalamana Credit Cooperative Society Limited as also Mahadeo Land Developers. According to applicants, one Pramod Agrawal is the alleged kingpin and whole and sole in respect of the said Societies and they being close his relatives, were made the office-bearers. According to applicants, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars pending hearing and final disposal of the trial as investigation in respect of the said crimes is over; whereas most of the evidence which is documentary in its nature, has been in the custody of Investigating machinery. It is further contended on behalf of the applicants that they are not vicariously liable according to law, for alleged dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. It is also contended that they were not directly concerned with the acceptance of deposits from the gullible investors who have deposited their funds with the company/ society floated by Pramod Agrawal, pursuant to the alluring advertisements published in print as well as electronic media. 5. The Respondent-State opposed grant of bail, contending that several 3 depositors deposited their life-fortune with the societies floated by Pramod Agrawal and his close relatives, including the present applicants and that the applicants are well aware of the transactions made by Pramod Agrawal on behalf of the societies and huge amounts and, as such, they have committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. According to respondent-State as many as 576 sale deeds have been seized by the Income Tax Department of the Central Government, in respect of various lands purchased in Vidarbha area, including Nagpur District and huge amounts were received by the societies. Thus, the bail applications are objected on the ground that economic offences are committed in full proportion and in conspiracy and poor persons were cheated and duped. 6. Various rulings were cited by the learned Advocate for the applicants in support of the bail applications and to dispute liability of the applicants for committing criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, as also cheating. It is contended that the charge-sheets have been filed; however, some of the applicants were not named in the same. Even if it is assumed that the trial Court is entitled to summon additional accused, in view of ruling in Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq : AIR 2007 SC page 1899, the Court will have record its satisfaction before summoning additional accused on the basis of evidence led before it that there exists possibility that accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted as it is extraordinary power conferred on the trial Court which is to be used very sparingly and for compelling reasons existing for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. Reference is also made to Lok Ram vs. Nihal Singh: AIR 2006 SC 1892 in order to submit that additional accused can be summoned on the basis of evidence adduced before the trial Court. Learned Advocate for the applicants also made reference to Jayendra Saraswathi vs. State of T.N. : (2005 ) 2 SCC 13 in which considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences, such as, nature and seriousness of the offence; character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; reasonable possibility of 4 the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State or other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case, are laid down. Reference is also made to Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi: AIR 200 SC Page 714 in order to support the contention that normally in respect of accusations u/s 420, 406 IPC, bail would be granted subject to certain conditions. The authority in Chandraswami vs. CBI : AIR 1997 SC Page 2575 is also in respect of accusations u/s 420 read with section 120-B of the IPC and when there was no likelihood of accused tampering with the evidence, benefit of bail was granted by the Apex Court. Learned Advocate for the applicant also made reference to Bhagirathsingh vs. State of Gujarat (1984) 1 SCC 2844 in order to submit that keeping the accused behind the bars pending the trial may amount to pre-trial punishment. Further, reference is made to oft- referred ruling in G. Gudikanti Narsimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh : AIR 1978 SC 429 in order to support the contention that bail is rule and jail is an exception. Reference is also made to Menino vs. State of Goa : 1994 Mh.L.J. 1803 ; Maksud Syed vs. State of Gujarat: (2008) 5 SCC 688 and S.K.Alagh vs. State of U.P. : AIR 2008 SC 1731. 7. According to learned Advocate for applicants perusal of the charge- sheets would show that stereotyped statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer to illustrate even the witness who stated his age was 80 years and alleged to have said that he went along with his father to invest the amount in the office of the accused of Pramod Agrawal. 8. Learned APP in order to oppose grant of bail contended that the applicants are involved prima facie in economic offences and, therefore, in view of the ruling in Himanshu vs. State of Gujarat : AIR 2006 SC 179 refusal of bail would be proper. Reference is also made to the 5 ruling in Abhay R.Sinha vs. State of Maharashtra: 1999 All.M.R. (Cri) 458 to submit that when custodial interrogation was necessary during pendency of investigation, bail was refused by the Bombay High Court. 9. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made at the Bar as also plethora of rulings cited supra. In the present cases applicants were already permitted to be interrogated in custody and thereafter they are in jail as under-trial prisoners. Charge sheets are already filed in the matters. Considering the nature of accusations against them and in the light of submissions at the Bar, I think no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars pending hearing and final disposal of the cases, particularly when documentary evidence is already in possession of the Income Tax authorities as also the Investigating agency. I think bail with stringent conditions be granted in the matters which would indeed meet the ends of justice. Hence the order. Each of the applicants be released upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (Rupees five lakhs ) each, with two or more sureties in the equal amount, provided that each of them shall provide security or solvency certificate to the satisfaction of the trial Court considering proportionate likely liability, for each of the applicant for alleged misappropriation and criminal breach of trust in respect of the deposits made by the investors. Such amount shall be subject to final decisions of the cases at the trial; with further conditions that the applicants shall attend the Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation. The applicants shall not communicate with any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as to influence them in any manner and misuse their liberty. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the I.O. ; they shall inform their permanent address/ change in the address with phone/cellphone number to the Investigating Officer as well as trial 6 Court. They shall attend at the nearest Police Station once in a week pending the trial. All applications are disposed of. Steno copy allowed. JUDGE. sahare