Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
Mangesh – Appellant
Versus
State, thr PSO, PS Lakadganj, Nagpur – Respondent
Criminal Application (BA) 422 of 2020
Decided On : 16-10-2020
For the Applicant :S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Sumit Gandhe, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N.B. Jawade, APP.
The judgment established the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, emphasizing the gravity of such offences and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the society and the victim.
Headnote:
Bail - Economic Offences - Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 409, 417, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 474, 120 read with section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the gravity of the economic offences under the Indian Penal Code, particularly focusing on sections 467 and 468, which are punishable with imprisonment extending to life. The court emphasized the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, considering the deleterious effect on the moral fiber of society and the economy. The judgment highlighted the extensive modus operandi employed to defraud the bank and the public, emphasizing the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the society and the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were involved in a criminal conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud of humongous proportion, causing a loss of Rs. 9,45,00,000 to Andhra Bank and the public at large. The accused obtained loans through manipulation, impersonation, and use of fabricated documents, causing substantial financial loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accusations to be extremely grave, with overwhelming prima facie evidence. It emphasized the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, considering the deleterious effect on the moral fiber of society and the economy.
Issues: The court analyzed the nature of the accusations, the gravity of the alleged offences, and the incriminating material in support of the accusations. It also considered the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or not being available to face trial, as well as the character and antecedents of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the economic offences, the extensive modus operandi employed to defraud the bank and the public, and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the society and the victim. It emphasized the need for a different approach in bail considerations for economic offences, considering the deleterious effect on the moral fiber of society and the economy.
Final Decision: The application for bail was dismissed, with the court directing the trial to be conducted with utmost priority and concluded within six months from the resumption of regular functioning of the courts.
Case Summary
- The applicant (accused no. 6, Mangesh Ranjit Jagtap) sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in Crime 405/2019 for offences under IPC Sections 406, 409, 417, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 473, 474, 120-B r/w 34. [4000642110001]
- Accused conspired to defraud Andhra Bank of Rs. 9,45,00,000 through 69 manipulated loans (housing, vehicle, cash) from Itwari, Manewada, and Bokhara branches, using non-existent businesses, impersonation, and fabricated documents. [4000642110001][4000642110032] (!)
- Loans sanctioned by accused Anagha Bhusari (Branch Manager), involving co-accused Ajinkya Deshmukh, Amol Kumbhare, Vikky Jat, Amit Bhagwat, and applicant; public money loss. [4000642110001][4000642110032]
- Applicant projected as partner in fake firms (Shrikrupa Agro, etc.), obtained multiple loans (OCC, term, vehicle, housing) using false ITRs, project reports, fabricated sale deed; diverted funds from family, relatives, co-accused, and gullible persons' names to his accounts/dummy firms. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Fabricated sale deed (dated 6.12.2017, fake registration details) used for loans in Dharmendra Pandey's name; Pandey unaware, discovered via CIBIL; forged KYC/identity docs. (!)
- Senior Counsel conceded overwhelming prima facie case; argued for bail based on parity (co-accused Anagha Bhusari, Amit Bhagwat on bail), voluminous chargesheet (3500 pages, 58 witnesses), prolonged trial. [4000642110002][4000642110003]
- Prosecution opposed: applicant's role graver (fabrication, wide fraud), economic offences category requires caution; no parity due to distinct conduct/scale. [4000642110004]
- Court rejected parity: "role" not narrow; applicant's deviance (fabrication, duping innocents) distinguishes from co-accused; parity not rule, yields to conscience in grave cases. [4000642110007][4000642110022][4000642110023][4000642110024][4000642110026][4000642110027][4000642110028][4000642110029]
- Economic offences demand different bail approach: grave impact on society/economy, cool calculation for profit, risk of tampering/influence; balance accused liberty with societal/victim interests. [4000642110009][4000642110014][4000642110017][4000642110018][4000642110019][4000642110020]
- No bail despite custody period/prolonged trial; offences grave (life imprisonment possible under Sections 467/468), prima facie material clinching. [4000642110006][4000642110008][4000642110009][4000642110021]
- Bail application dismissed; trial to conclude within 6 months of courts' resumption; observations prima facie only. [4000642110030][4000642110031]
Legal Principles on Bail in Economic Offences
- Bail not jail rule, but exceptions for economic offences due to societal harm, conspiracy depth, offender influence potential. [4000642110019]
- Considerations: nature/gravity of offence, incriminating material, tampering risk, antecedents; period in custody irrelevant in serious cases. [4000642110003][4000642110012]
- Parity applies to similarly circumstanced accused; not absolute, especially if graver role/conduct; cannot claim from erroneous prior orders. [4000642110007][4000642110022][4000642110024][4000642110025][4000642110026]
- Article 21 rights (liberty, presumption of innocence) balanced against societal justice, victim rights, secure environment. [4000642110020]
- Economic crimes: deliberate, profit-driven, undermine economy/moral fabric; community entitled to justice. [4000642110014][4000642110015][4000642110017]
JUDGMENT :
1. 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 nonexistent 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 separate category and
