Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 1983 PW 2024 State Vs Bharat
CNR-MHMM18-008249-2024
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION, EXH.5
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. The first application filed by applicant/accused Mr. Bharat Deepak
Chavan, was rejected by this court and now he again approached for bail
after filing of the charge sheet as per Section 437 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. It is contended that he is not in any way connected with the act
of fraud and falsely implicated. He himself has been victimized under the
pretext of providing profit/job by unknown persons by using his
documents. The disputed bank account in which an amount of Rs.8 lacs
has been transferred, has been used by absconded accused persons. Even
after filing of charge sheet there found no role of the present applicant in
the allegations. No case of forgery and cheating made out against him. He
is ready to remain abide by the conditions, if any, imposed. There are
dependents on him, etc.
3. Ld. A.P.P. objected to it stating that active involvement of the
accused has been transpired and amount of Rs.8 lacs has been transferred
to his account. The other accused persons are yet to be arrested. The
investigation though completed it is only in respect of the present
applicant and it is in progress in respect of other absconded persons, as
such there is possibility of tampering, etc.
4. The summary of the submissions are in tune with their respective
contentions.
5. The summary of the allegations is that First Information Report, is
that informant was contacted by unknown persons and lured under the
pretext of investing in stocks. Thereby he was defrauded by them to the
tune of an amount of Rs.22,44,945/-. The record of investigation reflects
that a company named as Vaishnavi Trading, in which an amount of Rs.8
lacs has been transferred, which is registered in the name of present
Page - 1/2
-- 1 of 2 --
C. C. No. 1983 PW 2024 State Vs Bharat
CNR-MHMM18-008249-2024
applicant. It is also contended that no offence of forgery made out and it
is contended that even if it is presumed that certain forgery has been
done, accused can not be connected with it.
6. Thus, there is limited role attributed to present applicant. Except
the transfer of the amount of Rs.8 lacs, there found no connection of the
present applicant in the evidence collected. Further, as relied by Ld.
Advocate for the applicant/accused and as observed by Supreme Court in
the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs R. Jawahar Raj ((2008) 7 SCC 581), it is
clear that no case of forgery is made out against the present
accused/applicant. As such there appears doubt about the involvement of
the accused/applicant in the allegations.
7. The possibility of commencement of trial and it’s conclusion
appears difficult. There are dependents on him. He is ready to remain
abide by the conditions. In such a situation pre-trial detention is not
justified. Considering all these aspects and facts and circumstances and
reasons assigned in the bail application the bail needs to be granted by
allowing the present application. Accordingly, following order -
ORDER
a. Application is allowed.
b. Accused Mr. Bharat Deepak Chavan, is released on bail on his
furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/-. Permission granted to deposit
cash security instead of surety bond.
c. Accused person shall furnish his detail address and proof thereof.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 28.06.2024 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 2/2
-- 2 of 2 --