1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3469 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3470 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3473 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3474 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3471 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3472 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3475 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3477 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3480 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3481 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3486 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3476 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3478 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3479 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3482 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3483 OF 2009 WITH 2 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3484 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3485 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3487 OF 2009 Vikram S/o.Mohan Javak APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, learned counsel for applicant in all the petitions. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State in all the petitions. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. All these applications are moved by applicant Vikram Mohan Jawak to release him on bail in connection with CR No.213/2006, 230/2006, 231/2006, 275/2006, 276/2006, 277/2006, 278/2006 and 279/2006. All these offences were registered against the applicant and 4 others in Parner Police Station of District : Ahmednagar for an alleged offence punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 of The IPC. Even though the offences were registered under these 8 crime register numbers, after completion of investigation, charge sheets were also filed against the applicant and others in connection with these 8 crime register numbers, but considering the 3 different transactions, total 19 charge sheets were filed before the Court of J.M.F.C. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. It appears that the present applicant was arrested in connection with all these offences on 11/05/2007. Thereafter he filed an application to release him on bail before Sessions Court, but the same application was rejected. Thereafter that order was not challenged before this Court, but since then the applicant accused is in custody. It is urged across the bar that in connection with CR No. 213/2006, charge sheet was filed on 23/07/2007, in connection with CR No.230/2006, charge sheet was filed on 23/07/2007, in connection with CR No.231/2006, charge sheet was filed on the same day, in connection with CR No.275/2006, the charge sheet was filed on 12/07/2007, in connection with CR No.276/2006 charge sheet was filed on 23/07/2007, in connection with CR No.277/2006 and 278/2006 charge sheet was filed on 23/07/2007, and in connection with CR No.279/2006 charge sheet was filed on 30/07/2007. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that other than CR No.275/2006 for which RCC No.27/2007 was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Parner, the subject matter of the transaction of that criminal case, this applicant has borrowed the loan in the sum of Rs. 3,11,000/-. Out of which he has repaid the loan to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- and the balance loan required to be repaid in the sum of Rs.1,45,819/- on the date of filing of the application. It is also informed across the bar that as the applicant is behind bars, this repayment of loan can not be adjusted and he can not make 4 arrangement for repayment of balance loan amount. Even though in the remaining CR Nos. for which other than Criminal Application no. 3476/2009 are preferred before this Court by the applicant, neither the applicant is the principal borrower nor he is the guarantor to the loan transactions with Shri.Swami Samarth Sah. Bank Ltd., Nighoj, Tal.Parner and this fact also can be considered from the facts stated/disclosed in the relevant complaints lodged in respect of these applications. It is also further brought to the notice of this Court that before filing of the charge sheet, the documents which were seized during the investigation in respect of these CR Nos., were not referred to the opinion of handwriting expert as there is an allegation that the documents which were submitted to obtain the loan by the borrower as well as the persons who stood as guarantors to these loan transactions and to verify as to whether the other accused are the persons who have submitted these documents under their signatures. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after the charge sheet was filed in respect of all the 8 Crime register numbers, of which the outcome is filing in 19 regular criminal cases against the applicant and others and application was moved before the learned J.M.F.C. Parner on 24/04/2008 by the prosecution to refer the documents seized in connection with all these 8 CR’s to the handwriting expert. After hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, this application came to be rejected on 03/05/2008. It further appears that as it is informed across the bar that the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. on the application to refer these documents for the opinion of the handwriting expert, revision was 5 filed before the Court of Sessions by the prosecution on 04/06/2008. After the revision was preferred against the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. Parner, prosecution succeeded in obtaining stay to the said orders in the proceedings about the pending criminal cases in the Court of J.M.F.C. Parner. This application came to be allowed on 29/08/2008. Still the fact remain as the documents which were seized during the investigation are to be referred for the opinion of handwriting expert and unless this opinion is received, charges can not be framed against the present applicant and others, that is how all those criminal cases are waiting for their turn to come for the actual commencement of the trial. It is also informed and also not disputed that as soon as the revision was moved before the Court of Session challenging the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Parner, an application was moved by the applicant to release him on bail as delay caused to the trial vide application dated 11/05/2009. This application also came to be rejected by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29/08/2009. 3. Now the applicant has approached this Court on merit as well as on technical grounds also. It is urged across the bar that out of 19 criminal cases as stated earlier, applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor to the transactions entered into with the other accused persons involved in other cases with Shri.Swami Samartha Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nighoj, It is also urged across the bar by producing the statement of account given by the said bank that out of the loan obtained by the present applicant to the tune of Rs.3,11,000/-, the 6 balance repayment against this loan is in the sum of Rs.1,45,819/- The other accused in other cases are already released on bail and if because of no fault on the part of the applicant, if the trial is delayed, when he is in custody for more than 2 years and about 5 months, he be released on bail as he has right of speedy trial. 4. While opposing these bail applications, it is urged across the bar on behalf of prosecution that the involvement of the applicant accused is in an economic offence. He is the master minded person who has created all these documents which were submitted by the other borrowers and guarantors with the bankers and on the basis of these documents submitted with the bank, loan was obtained by those borrowers and considering this aspect, these applications to be rejected. 5. At the outset, considering all these submissions and the point involved in all these applications, all these applications to be disposed of by way of common order. 6. It is to be considered that the alleged offence against the applicant and others is punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 of The IPC. The facts which discloses from the complaint as well as the papers of investigation in all these crimes other than CR No. 275/2006 out of which the case arises RCC No.27/2007, the applicant is neither guarantor nor borrower to the transaction concerned. Then the question arose when he is not a borrower or a 7 guarantor to the loan transaction with the said bank, no question arose that he had submitted any documents on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned and disbursed by the bank to the other accused who are arrayed as an accused in the remaining CR Nos. Even though it is urged across the bar on instructions that the present applicant is the master minded person, who has created the documents and on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned and disbursed, to make the submissions and to point out from the evidence collected during the investigation are two separate issues. Even though it is submitted across the bar that the applicant is master minded person behind all these transactions, this fact is not whispered in the complaints before the Court as well as I did not find it from the papers of investigation collected during the investigation. 7. It is observed in the matter of Balkrushna Pande versus State of UP 2003(12) SCC 186, by the Full Bench of the Apex Court that the accused has a right of speedy trial and if after filing of the charge sheet, there are no chances to proceed with the trial, then the accused is entitled to enlarge on bail. In the case in my hand, report of the handwriting expert was not called before filing of the charge sheet, but the documents to be referred as per the application moved by the prosecution to take the opinion of the handwriting expert after filing of the charge sheet and i.e. also nearabout after the period of 9 months. Nobody knows how much time will consume to receive the opinion of the handwriting expert. If the charge sheet is filed without 8 obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert, it can not be said that the applicant is at fault for delay in the trial, but it is to be inferred that the investigation machinery is at fault for the delay of the trial and if it is so, and considering the liability as per the bank statement arises against this accused applicant in the sum of Rs. 1,45,819/-, the case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail by putting certain conditions on him. Hence order - O R D E R 1. All the applications are hereby allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail in connection with all the cases pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Parner on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each in each case and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After releasing on bail, has not to leave the local jurisdiction of J.M.F.C. Parner without the previous permission in writing either from the J.M.F.C. Parner or from the Investigation Officer concerned till all the trials stand disposed of. 4. Applicant to give attendance to Parner Police Station on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till commencement of trial. 5. All the applications stand disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri-appl-3469-09