RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.454 of 2018 registered with Udgir (Rural) Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 424, 405, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. His application with similar prayer came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, vide order dated 19.08.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No.97 of 2020.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : Informant Ganpatrao Sangappa Biradar has filed a Criminal Misc. Application No.392 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate First Classs, Udgir for seeking directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udgir by order in Criminal Misc. Application No.392 of 2018, directed the Officer In-charge of the Police Station Udgir (Rural) to register the offence against the present applicant and investigate the same as per the law. Accordingly, Police Station Udgir (Rural) has registered the Crime No.454 of 2018 against the applicant as detailed above. The informant and others as named in the complaint are the agriculturists by occupation and the applicant herein is the owner-cum-Proprietor of the godown name and styled as 'Swami Samarth Godown'. The informant and the other agriculturists named in the complaint, have kept their soyabean and other agricultural produce in the said godown owned by the applicant. It is stated that the said warehouse (godown) was given to one National Colateral Management Services Ltd. Pvt. Co. for a management purpose and the said company and its officers were looking after the management of the warehouse. In the year 2015, the informant and the other agriculturists, named in the complaint had kept their soyabean to the extent of quantity, as mentioned in the complaint, respectively, in the said godown on monthly charges. It has been alleged in the complaint that the total quantity of soyabean is to the tune of Rs.1266 quintal and 21 k.g. According to the informant, the receipts to that effect have been issued by the warehouse authority. However, the applicant by preparing the forged documents played fraud on the informant and the agriculturists, the said National Colateral Management Services Ltd. and the bank. It is alleged that the applicant is illegally dispose of the stock, stored in the warehouse and thereby caused wrongful loss to the agriculturists. It has been alleged that the market value of the said quantity of soyabean is Rs.37,98,630/-. It has been alleged in the complaint that the applicant in collusion with his wife and other employees of the warehouse has shown the said soyabean of the informant and the other farmers in the name of the applicant, his wife and other staff members, hypothicated the said commodity with bank and obtained huge amount of loan.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the informant and the other agriculturists have insituted suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 2018 for perpetual injunction in respect of the said quantity of soyabean kept in the warehouse. The informant and the other agriculturists sought the injunction against the applicant preventing him from disposing of the said stock of the soyabean kept in the warehouse. Applicant has filed Written Statement on 17.07.2018 and denied all the allegations. According to the applicant, the receipts produced by the informant and the other farmers are false to their knowledge and they have not kept any soyabean bags in his warehouse. The learned counsel submits that there is no documentary evidence to indicate that the informant and the agriculturists mentioned in the complaint owned and possessed the agricultural lands and they sown the soyabean in their respective agricultural lands during the period of 2014-2015. The learned counsel submits that all the allegations are false to the knowledge of the informant and further the said allegations are civil in nature. The learned counsel submits that Section 409 of the IPC neither mentioned in the FIR nor find place in the charge-sheet. The learned counsel submits that the investigation is over and the charge- sheet has been submitted, thus further detention of the applicant in connection with the present crime is unwarranted and uncalled for. Further the civil suit is still pending for adjudication. The applicant is having a fixed place of residence. The applicant is easily available for trial. The applicant may be released on bail.