Interim Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 963 PW 2022 State Vs Ravi and anr.
CNR MHMM18-004172-2022
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1804/2022
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. This is an application under Section 437 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for bail.
3. The present applicant/accused, ori. Accu. No.2, Chandramohan
Bholanath Mehrotra, filed this application for bail, on various grounds, as
follows -
a. Accused is innocent and victim of the circumstances.
b. The informant/victim made investment of Rs.3,85,00,000/-,
at the instance of Accused No.1, Ravi Varadrajan and said
amount is transferred in the account of firm named as M/s S. K.
Enterprises, of which Accused No.1, Ravi, himself represented
as its M.D.
c. Applicant is a respected businessman dealing in
electroplating.
d. Believing Accused No.1, Ravi, to be genuine financial
advisor, on his request the present applicant become Managing
Director of the said S. K. Finance, only on papers, without
having any knowledge of it.
e. All the acts of forgery were done by Accused No.1, Ravi,
himself.
f. Not a single transaction done in the account of S. K. Finance
and no money has been transferred there.
g. During investigation nothing recovered from the accused. No
role attributed to him.
h. Accused is a businessman, having his wife and two minor
children dependent on him.
i. Other accused already released on bail.
j. Investigation relating to accused is over. The commencement
and conclusion of trial will take much time.
k. Accused is permanent resident of Mumbai and ready to
remain abide by the conditions.
-- 1 of 5 --
C. C. No. 963 PW 2022 State Vs Ravi and anr.
CNR MHMM18-004172-2022
4. Ld. A.P.P. objected to bail application mainly on the ground that
offence is serious, it is of cognizable and non-bailable nature. Role of the
accused transpired in the investigation. Accused will not remain present
for trial and there is possibility of tampering of evidence. Therefore,
application shall be rejected.
5. The prosecution case is that informant is N.R.I. living in Australia
and serving their as a Teacher. He has maintained saving account with
Axis Bank, Bandra Reclamation Branch, Mumbai, and having huge
amount crossing Rs.1 core in it. Therefore, she was treated as Burgundy
Customer by the bank having certain privileges and facilities. On the
advice of senior officer Accused No.1, Ravi Jagannathan, Wealth
Specialist of the bank, was appointed as Investment Advisor for her by the
bank. After some initial investment he referred informant a company
named as S. K. Enterprises and insisted her to invest in it by showing
some details and furnishing some false information. Accordingly, relying
on his representation informant invested Rs.3,85,75,214/- in the said
company S. K. Enterprises. While luring her for investment present
applicant/accused Chandramohan represented himself as Managing
Director of the said company. Accused Ravi also furnished some
documents and other papers in the form of Bonds, etc. to make believe the
informant that her investment is properly done. Later on it is transpired
that both these accused persons mislead the informant, cheated and
defrauded her by forging certain documents. During investigation it is
transpired that another person named as Dhruvesh Vinod Kapuria, was
also involved in the said act.
6. The investigation was completed and charge sheet is filed only
against two accused persons i.e. Accused No.1, Ravi Jagannathan and
present applicant Accused No.2, Chandramohan Bholanath Mehrotra.
Accused No.3, Dhruvesh Vinod Kapuria, has not been charge sheeted
-- 2 of 5 --
C. C. No. 963 PW 2022 State Vs Ravi and anr.
CNR MHMM18-004172-2022
observing that no role of the said accused is transpired and therefore, his
name is deleted.
7. Accused No.1, Ravi Jagannathan, applied for bail. His bail
application was allowed on 19.05.2022, and was released on bail.
8. Now Accused No.2, present applicant/accused approached this
court for bail on above mentioned grounds.
9. The submissions of Ld. Advocate for the accused and Ld. A.P.P. are
in tune with their respective contentions and there is no need of repetition.
During arguments both the parties relied on certain documents from the
charge sheet.
10. The main contention of the applicant/accused is that there attributed
no role to him. For this purpose he relied on statement of one of the
witness Mr. Dhruvesh Vinod Kapuria, who was initially arrayed as
accused, wherein the particulars of all the amounts transferred by the
informant are mentioned. The said statement reflects that amount was
transferred in the account of S. K. Enterprises, and he is the owner of the
said company. It is also mentioned that the name of the present
applicant/accused is just mentioned there having no connection with the
transactions. The said witness received whole amount in the said account
and transferred it to Accused No.1, Ravi Jagannathan.
11. To counter this, Ld. A.P.P. also relied on some documents filed with
charge sheet. Out of those documents the various email communications
between accused persons and Mr. Dhruvesh Vinod Kapuria, whose name
has been dropped, show that there were so many transactions between all
of them and were dealing in share market. From the contents of those
emails it can be said that all of them were well aware with each other,
their businesses and the things they are dealing with. Further, it can not be
said that applicant/accused is totally unaware of the transaction entered by
-- 3 of 5 --
C. C. No. 963 PW 2022 State Vs Ravi and anr.
CNR MHMM18-004172-2022
other accused and Mr. Dhruvesh Kapuria, with third parties. The
submissions in this regard from the side of applicant to the effect that
Accused No.1, Ravi, has committed fraud on him, can not be accepted, at
least at this stage of the matter. Whole record reflects that there is
something going on between all these three persons resulted in cheating
of the informant.
12. This fact is further substantiated by the record of communications
produced with the charge sheet occurred between the present
applicant/accused and informant via social media. All these chat details if
collectively considered it can be easily inferred that everything was done
with the advice of the present applicant/accused as well. He is aware of
the investments done by informant, through Accused No.1, Ravi and Mr.
Dhruvesh Kapuria. It can not be said that accused is totally innocent and
not at all connected with the transactions.
13. Informant an old aged woman duped to the tune about four crore
rupees by totally misleading her and betraying her faith reposed by her in
the accused persons. She was make to believe on forged documents and
this huge amount was obtained from her hard earned money. The record
further reflects that Accused No.1, Ravi, spent huge part of it on his
enjoyment and in leading lavish lifestyle. He did this thing shaking hands
with the present applicant/accused.
14. The investigation just completed. Releasing the accused at this
stage will definitely hamper the progress of trial. No doubt Accused No.1,
Ravi, is released on bail, but there found no grounds to consider parity
and release the present accused as well.
15. The stake involved, nature of the act done, stage of the matter and
the role played by accused dis-entitles him from his release on bail.
Therefore, order -
-- 4 of 5 --
C. C. No. 963 PW 2022 State Vs Ravi and anr.
CNR MHMM18-004172-2022
ORDER
Application is rejected.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 30.05.2022 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
-- 5 of 5 --