Advocates:
['FIRDOS MIRZA', '', 'ABDUL SUBHAN', 'APP']

1 16ba32.22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (B.A) NO. 32/2022

(Mira Zahid Baig Abdul Vs. State of Maharashtra)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

Court'

s or Judge'

s Order

Coram, appearances, Court'

s Orders

or directions and Registrar'

s order

Mr. F. T. Mirza, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. I. Damle, APP for non-applicant/State.

CORAM :- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED :- 23.03.2022

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant/

State.

2.

The applicant has been arraigned for the

offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,

471, 306, 511, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code in Crime No. 297/2020. The First Information

Report is dated 07.02.2020. The applicant has been

arrested on 05.02.2021 and charge-sheet has been filed on

04.04.2021.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits

that the role of the applicant is limited in the entire matter,

as a commission agent under the agreement 13.06.2018

Gohane

2 16ba32.22

(page 107), which would indicate, that the applicant

would have been entitled to commission of Rs. 1.50 crores

for providing future services and expertise to the

complainant, in the event as and when the deed of

development would be executed between the complainant

and Nagpur Diocesan Trust Association (NDTA). He

submits that since no such agreement or development

came to be executed, the applicant under commission

agreement dated 13.06.2018, has not received anything.

He therefore, submits that considering the role of the

applicant as spelt out from the agreement dated

13.06.2018, the applicant is entitled to bail as the main

accused namely Prashant Ashok Satralkar has been

released by this Court by the order dated 22.03.2022.

4.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes

the application and submits that the applicant has received

sum of Rs. 20 lakh in cash, which is claimed to have been

reinvested in the company of the complainant namely

AGM (All Goods Marketing Corporation). On account of

such investment, the applicant has received sum of Rs. 8

laks from time to time. It is further contended that, the

Gohane

3 16ba32.22

applicant is a witness to the Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) dated 07.9.2018, the power of

attorney dated 15.01.2019, in respect of the property at

Mouza Nara and agreement of sale dated 27.03.2019. He

therefore submits, that considering the role of the

applicant, he is not entitled to bail.

5.

As held in the order dated 22.3.2022, the

MOU dated 07.09.2018 between NDTA and the

complainant was merely an agreement to agree and purely

a commercial transaction. The present applicant, in terms

of the agreement dated 13.06.2018 was merely entitled to

a commission which as disclosed from perusal of the

agreement, was to be paid after deed of development

would have been executed in favour of complainant, which

has not taken place. Though the applicant is a witness to

the above three documents as claimed by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, merely being a witness to

documents, would not prima facie indicate his involvement

in the offence. Considering the role of the applicant, as

indicated from perusal of the charge-sheet as well as

agreement for payment of fees/commission dated

Gohane

4 16ba32.22

13.06.2018, the terms of the MOU dated 07.09.2018 and

Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,

(2012) 1 SCC 400, I am of the considered opinion, that

prima facie case for bail is made out however, considering,

that the claim is made regarding receipt of financial

consideration by the applicant, the same shall be on

conditions. Hence, the following order

O R D E R

(I)

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

(II) The applicant – Mirza Zahid Baig Abdul be

released on bail in Crime No. 2