2020 Supreme(Bom) 1363
ROHIT B.DEO
Mangesh – Appellant
Versus
State, thr PSO, PS Lakadganj, Nagpur – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Sumit Gandhe, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N.B. Jawade, APP.
Judgement Key Points
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 conc
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
