Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Bail Order
Pdf Text: ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION IN C. C. NO. 1544/BA/2024 IN
C. C. NO. 882/PW/2011 OF TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION
1. The accused/applicant Mangesh Shantaram Navrat has moved
this second application for praying to release himself on bail
under section 437 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Read the application and say filed below it by A.P.P & I.O.
3. Heard the learned Advocate of the accused and learned A.P.P.
The I. O. and Ld. A.P.P. has strongly objected this application on
the grounds that the charge levelled against accused are
serious in nature. The accused has already made application
for bail which was rejected. The grounds mentioned in this
application are baseless.
4. The learned Advocate for the accused submitted that he is
falsely implicated in this matter. The applicant role cannot be
specifically proved in the subject matter of investigation by the
police. He is permanent resident of Mumbai. The accused’s
father suffered from corona disease in 2020. Since he was
constantly ill and was at his native place and therefore, accused
could not appear in the court. He has no criminal antecedent
registered against him in any police station. He is law abiding
citizen and hail from respectable family with deep roots in the
society. He is ready to abide any condition impose by this court.
He is only earning member of his family. The learned Advocate
for the accused submitted that he will abide by the terms and
conditions imposed by this Court if the prayer as set out in the
application is granted.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. Already the accused
moved similar bail application No. 1415/BA/2024 which came
to be rejected on merit for order dated 17/10/2024. On
perusal of the previous bail application and when compared
-- 1 of 4 --
--- 2 ---
with the present bail application I found that the contentions
and ground raised in this application are similar to the previous
bail application. The second bail application is maintainable
only on the ground of change the circumstances. The accused
has not made out any ground of change circumstances which
entitles him to be released on bail.
6. Further the say of APP as well as FIR and charge-sheet, it
shows that the informant is the then branch manager of
Hindustan Co-operative Credit Society and the accused was
working as cashier in said credit society. In the year 2010 a
customer Mobin approached to the said credit society to
withdraw the amount from his account, wherein it came to
know that the staff of said society withdrawn the said amount
without the permission of the customer. The informant verified
all the accounts of the said society and he came to know that
there is huge differences in the accounts, as many of the
customers have approached to the informant. The informant
also came to know that one Vasant Vitthal Kharade who
approached to and asked for renewal of fixed deposit, wherein
it came to know that such FD account has been closed and the
said amount of FD is transferred in the savings account of the
customer and without his knowledge and consent it was
withdrawn. After several verifications, the informant came to
know that the accused Mangesh Navrat has illegally siphoned
the amount of funds from customers accounts. The accused
made forged receipts for withdrawal of funds and also issued
fake FD certificates to the customers. The said accused has
forged the documents such as withdrawal receipts and have
morphed duplicate signatures of the customers and also issued
-- 2 of 4 --
--- 3 ---
duplicate certificates of FD to the tune of Rs.9,75,525/-.
7. Further the accused prima facie appears to have misused the
powers of cashier, when he was an employment of the said
society. On perusal of the proceeding it appears that since
2018- 2019 the accused fails to remain present and to proceed
with the trial. The charge against him was framed as back as
May 2015. However, due to absence of the accused the trial
could not proceed. Therefore, my predecessor initially issued
NBW and later on proclamation and standing warrant. Also the
bail bonds were forfeited to the state. In spite of it the accused
though had a knowledge that the present proceeding is
pending against him, failed to appear. The reason given by him
in his application are after thought and are not supported by
any documentary evidence.
8. More so, considering the conduct of the accused, there are
chances that accused may abscond during the trial. The
accused has already prolonged the proceedings of trial as the
matter is of year 2011.
9. On the other hand, though the prosecution alleged that the
accused siphoned an amount of Rs. 9,75,525/- there is only
recovery of Rs.1,03,700/- only. The accused neither gave the
discovery of the remaining amount nor willingly paid the same
to the victim during such a long span of 13 years. More so,
considering the conduct of the accused, there are chances that
accused may again abscond during the trial, if released on bail.
Therefore, there is no substance in the present application so
that the present application is devoid of merits and liable to be
rejected.
-- 3 of 4 --
--- 4 ---
-: O R D E R :-
1) The application is hereby rejected.
Date :- 13/11/2024
Place:-Vikhroli.
Sd/-.
(Ajay A. Bhatewara)
Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
34th Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 4 --