SATYANARAYAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.66 of 2019, registered with Loha Police Station Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. P. S. Paranjape for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. Y. Mahajan for respondent- State.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that, the applicant is a respectable businessman in Nanded and he has not criminal antecedents. One Sandeep Manikrao Kuldeepake has lodged First Information Report (FIR) with the Police Station contending that one Sunil Suryakant Pallewad and his father Suryakant Piraji Pallewad are the office bearers of institution by name Samta Magasvargiya Vikas Mahamandal, Savarmal Tq. Mukhed Dist. Nanded. It is a public trust and the said trust had presented four cheques which were honoured and there is cheating to the bank to the tune of Rs.85,00,000/-. It is submitted that, main accused involved in the crime are Sunil Pallewad and Suryakant Pallewad. They were arrested and they are still behind the bar. During the interrogation of these two arrested accused persons, the name of the present applicant has been taken as an abettor to the commission of the crime. In fact, the investigation is already complete and even the charge-sheet is filed. The allegations which are reflecting in the charge-sheet would show that, the applicant had helped the main accused persons to commit the crime. But the charge-sheet does not say that, what was the role played by the present applicant. There was no direct transaction between the applicant and those two main accused persons. The applicant is accepting that he had business relationship with accused No.4 Anandkumar Ganeshram Mandan who is resident of Navi Mumbai, but beyond that there is no other role. The applicant appears to have been falsely implicated in the crime. The applicant is ready to abide by any terms of the bail as his custodial interrogation is not required. He undertakes to co-operate with the investigation. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has taken this Court to the important points in the charge-sheet and submitted that, in fact no specific role has been attributed. The Investigating Officer has come with a case that, the present applicant was seen with the two main accused persons in the Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) Footage of Bank of India, Branch At Loha for honouring the cheque in question. It might be a fact that the present applicant might have gone at the same time to the said branch when the two main accused persons had gone. Only on the basis of that evidence it cannot be said that, this applicant has hatched up the conspiracy with the two accused. Nothing is required to be seized from the present applicant. The present applicant was on interim bail in view of order dated 02-07-2019 and he has then co-operated with the investigation. He, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.