VINOD BHAVARLAL MOHATA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this application, applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No.262 of 2009 registered at Goregaon Police Station (Criminal Case No.209/PW/2010) pending in Borivali for an alleged offence punishable u/ ss.379, 420, 467, 468, 479 r/w. section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) Bonanza Portfolios Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the company") holds a current account with Nariman Point Branch, HDFC bank Ltd.. Two leaves of cheques from a cheque book of the current account of the company were stolen. One cheque was forged and shown to have been drawn in favour of S. L. Sripathi and was deposited in his account. The cheque was for Rs.45 lakhs and the company was defrauded for the said sum of Rs.45 lakhs. I am informed at the bar that Sripathi has redeposited most of the money so withdrawn in the account of the company and that matter is being settled. The second leaf of cheque was used by Mr. Mubin Ahmed Kutty (accused no.2) for forging a cheque in the name of Vinod Mohata (the present applicant) who is said to be colluding with Mr. Mubin Ahmed Kutty (accused no.2). Accused no.2 then attempted to deposit the cheque in the account of the present applicant but was caught red-handed. The applicant was arrested on 9th November, 2009 as a conspirator on the basis of a statement of Mubin Ahmed Kutty. The pay-in-slip which was filled in at the time of attempted deposit is signed by Mr. Mubin Ahmed Kutty and not by the present applicant. Except for the statement of Mr. Mubin Ahmed Kutty and another co-accused there is no other evidence to show that the present applicant was a part of the conspiracy of forging the cheque and/or an attempt of depositing the cheque in his account. Mr. Mubin Ahmed Kutty has been granted bail by this court by an order dated 3rd March, 2010 passed in Criminal Application No.698 of 2001. The role of the present applicant in the alleged crime cannot be said to be greater than the role of Mr. Mubin Ahmed Kutty. In the circumstances, applicant is also entitled to bail on account of parity. Hence, I pass the following order: