KHANHAIYA RAMCHAND THAWRANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three bail applications are being disposed of by this common order, as the offences registered against the applicant in three crimes at two police stations are similar, arise out of same allegations and that the common grounds are raised in these applications.

(2.) The allegations against the applicant are that the applicant is not a registered member of a recognised stock exchange nor has any licence issued by the Central Government to deal in securities and yet, he dealt in securities and thus carried out illegal business of trading in shares. It is also alleged that the applicant kept a place, which was not a recognised stock exchange and used it for the purpose of entering into or performing various contracts in securities in contravention of the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Securities Act' for short). It is further alleged that by indulging in illegal share trading, the applicant caused huge loss of revenue to the Government by cheating the Government, various authorities and persons having stakes or interest in securities dealings. These activities were carried on, according to the police, by the applicant at three different places falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tahsil and Police Station Lakadganj and accordingly three distinct crimes were registered against the applicant. The crime pertaining to Police Station Tahsil is Crime No.102/2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.) and also the offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the Securities Act and the crimes pertaining to Police Station Lakadganj are Crime Nos.153/2016 and 155/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 471, 477A and 120B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and also the offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the Securities Act. Bail applications Nos.445, 446 and 447 of 2016 relate to these three distinct crimes respectively.

(3.) I have heard Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Public Prosecutor, who argued on law points involved and Shri S.S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. assisting the learned Public Prosecutor on factual aspects of the case. I have gone through the casediary including the F.I.R. and the material placed on record.