The judgment established the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, emphasizing the potential impact on the economy and the interests of the society and the victim.

JUDGMENT

Rohit B Deo, J. - The applicant, who is arraigned as accused 6 in Crime 405/2019, registered with Police Station Lakadganj, Nagpur, for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 417, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 474, 120 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is seeking regular bail invoking section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Code").

2. Gist of the prosecution case:-

2.1 The accused Ajinkya Vilasrao Deshmukh, Amol Ravikiran Kumbhare, Anagha Nikhil Bhusari, Vikky Rameshkumar Jat, Amit Chandrashekhar Bhagwat and the applicant Mangesh Ranjit Jagtap entered into a criminal conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud of humongous proportion, the immediate victim of which is the Andhra Bank and the eventual sufferers the public at large.

2.2 The substratum of the prosecution case is that accused Anagha Bhusari was the Branch Manager of Itwari Branch of Andhra Bank. The accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and manipulated sanction of 69 loans inter alia housing loan, vehicle purchase loan and cash loan from the Itwari, Manewada and Bokhara Branches of the Andhra Bank. Loans were obtained in the name of non-existent business concerns or family controlled concerns of the accused and in some cases by impersonation and use of fabricated documents, in the name of gullible persons who had not even visited the concerned Branch, much less applied for the loan.

2.3 The fraud caused loss of Rs. 9,45,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores Fourty Five Lacs) to Andhra Bank, which ultimately is the loss of public money.

3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari in support of the bail application and Mr. N.B. Jawade, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, who strenuously opposed grant of bail. With the able assistance of the learned counsel, the material in the chargesheet is scrutinized threadbare.

4. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari would submit, with usual fairness, that in the teeth of the incriminating material in the chargesheet, the hearing may proceed on the premise that the prosecution has made out an overwhelming prima facie case against the applicant. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari is quick to add that the existence of prima facie case against the accused, and indeed even a strong prima facie case, is not decisive. The extension of the submission is that the exercise of discretion under section 439 of the Code must be judicious and on the touchstone of several relevant considerations, inter alia, the nature of the accusations, the gravity of the offence alleged, the incriminating material in support of the accusation, the likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or not being available to face the trial, the character and antecedents of the accused and other relevant circumstances. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari would submit that in the case at hand the other relevant circumstances would be, the fact that two co-accused, who are attributed similar role, are released on bail, that the chargesheet runs into as many as approximately 3500 pages and cites 58 witnesses and, axiomatically a prolonged trial.

5. In rebuttal, Mr. N.B. Jawade would submit that the principle of parity does not come into play for reasons more than one. Mr. N.B. Jawade would submit that the role of the accused is not necessarily decisive. The conduct of the accused and the width and amplitude of the criminal acts would be a distinguishing factor if the allegations against the applicant are considered in juxtaposition with the allegations faced by Anagha Bhusari and Amit Bhagwat, who are released on bail. Adverting to the incriminating material, Mr. N.B. Jawade would submit that considering the criminal acts in which the applicant has indulged, and there is voluminous cogent incriminating material to prima facie hold so, grant of bail shall be a huge disservice to the civil society, which is the ultimate casualty in economic offences. Mr. N.B. Jawade would emphasis that the Apex Court has carved out economic offences as a se