Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.
Bhausaheb - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1509, 1510, 1513, 1532, 1534 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
S.T. Pandey, Advocate, Jaydeep S. Vaishampayan, Advocate, Shaikh Kayyum Najir, Advocate, B.V. Virdhe, Advocate, P.V. Diggikar, Advocate, A.M. Phule, Advocate

The delay in trial, seriousness of economic offences, and the larger interest of the public are crucial factors in determining bail applications for serious economic offences.

Headnote:
Bail - Delay in Trial - Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of M.P.I.D. Act, 1999 - [1534/2020, 1532/2020, 1509/2020, 1510/2020, 1513/2020] - The court rejected the bail applications citing serious economic offences, delay in trial, and the larger interest of the public. The trial courts were directed to expedite the trial and frame charges within two months. If the trial is not commenced within six months, the applicants may renew their prayer for bail.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants are seeking bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with respective crimes, mainly on the ground of delay in trial. The applicants are accused of floating ponzi schemes, misappropriating investors' money, and committing serious economic offences. The trial courts have not yet framed charges against the applicants, and the delay in trial is the basis for their bail application.
Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the bail applications, emphasizing the serious nature of the economic offences, the delay in trial, and the larger interest of the public. The trial courts were directed to expedite the trial and frame charges within two months. If the trial is not commenced within six months, the applicants may renew their prayer for bail.
Issues: Delay in trial, seriousness of economic offences, public interest, and the need for expedited trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in trial, seriousness of the economic offences, and the larger interest of the public were the key factors influencing the court's decision to reject the bail applications.
Final Decision: The bail applications were rejected, and the trial courts were directed to expedite the trial and frame charges within two months. If the trial is not commenced within six months, the applicants may renew their prayer for bail.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - The applicants are seeking bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with respective crimes, mainly on the ground of delay in trial.

2. The following are the details of applicants/accused :

Bail Appln. No.	Crime No.	Spl. MPID Case No.	Name of applicant/ accused	Date of arrest	Date of MCR	Date of filing chargesheet
1.	1534/2020	56/2014 at Ashti Police Station, Taluka Partur, Dist.Jalna under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of M.P.I.D. Act, 1999	1/2018	Bhausaheb s/o Chhabu Chavan,	7.9.2016	13.9.2016	6.12.2016
2.	1532/2020	56/2014 at Ashti Police Station, Taluka Partur, Dist.Jalna under Sections 406,409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of M.P.I.D. Act, 1999	1/2018	Arti w/o Bhausaheb Chavan	7.9.2016	13.9.2016	6.12.2016
3	1509/2020	261/2014 at Jawahar Police Station, Aurangabad under Sections 420, 409, 423, 424, 467, 471, 474, 406, 465, 34, 120-B of I.P.C. and uunder Sec.3 and 4 of M.P.I.D Act	1/2015	Bhausaheb s/o Chhabu Chavan	31.7.2016	9.8.2016	16.5.2015 Supplimen - tary charge sheet filed on 19.10.201 6
4.	1510/2020	261/2014 at Jawahar Police Station, Aurangabad under Sections 420,409, 423,424, 467,471, 474,406, 465,34, 120-B of I.P.C. and under Sec.3 and 4 of M.P.I.D Act, 1999	1/2015	Arti w/o Bhausaheb Chavan	31.7.2016	9.8.2016	16.5.2015 Supplimen - tary charge sheet filed on 19.10.201 6
5.	1513/2020	176/2016 at City Police Station, Beed, under Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and u/s Sec.3 and 4 of M.P.I.D. Act, 1999		Bhausaheb s/o Chhabu Chavan	28.6.2018	28.6.2018	31.8.2018

3. The facts of the case in narrow compass are as under :

(i) According to the prosecution case, the applicants who are accused in respective crimes alleged to have floated ponzi scheme with dishonest intention and invited the public at large to deposit their money in the various schemes of their companies viz. K.B.C.Club Resort, Nasik and K.B.C. Multi Trade Private Limited Company. The false promises were given to the investors to deposit their money with their respective companies with a promise that they would get double the amount of their investment within a short period. The applicants/accused in connection with respective crimes had given wide publicity of their schemes by way of advertisements at large gatherings at various places in Maharashtra, viz. Matoshri Lawns, Jalna, Dattaji Bhale School at Ambad, Guru Lawns of Aurangabad and Hotel Atithi at Aurangabad. It is alleged that during the gatherings, information brochures, pamphlets were distributed to the investors in respect of their companies, special plans for the depositors/investors to invest money in their companies. The applicants are the Directors/Managing Directors of K.B.C. Multi Trade Private Limited Company and K.B.C. Club Resort, Nashik. After the establishment of K.B.C. companies, 3089 investors had invested their money in various schemes with the K.B.C. group of Companies owned by the applicants/accused.

(ii) It is alleged that the applicants/accused did not return the amount to the investors as promised. Even, the applicants did not return the principal amount to the investors. The applicants are alleged to have used the deposited amount for their own purpose. Most of the cheques issued by the applicants to the investors came to be dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

(iii) On the basis of F.I.R.s respective crimes registered at different police stations. During course of investigation by the Crime Investigation Department, it is revealed that there are twenty-one cases registered against the applicants. It is further revealed during course of investigation that the schemes floated by the applicants were without licence of the Reserve Bank of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADShrikant D. Kulkarni, J.Bhausaheb - AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra - RespondentBail Application No. 1509, 1510, 1513, 1532, 1534 of 2020Decided On : 01-12-2021

The delay in trial, seriousness of economic offences, and the larger interest of the public are crucial factors in determining bail applications for serious economic offences.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.
Bhausaheb - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1509, 1510, 1513, 1532, 1534 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2021