Advocates:
['GAURAV S GOUR', '', 'DEVENDRA V CHAUHAN', 'APP']

26ba-282-22.odt

1/10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.282 OF 2022

(Prashant s/o Jaideo Wasankar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Economic Offence Wing, Civil

Lines, Nagpur)

_______________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions

Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate and Shri G.S. Gaur, Advocate for applicant

Shri V.A. Thakare, APP for the State / Non-applicant

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J

.

DATE

D : 03.08.2022.

1.

The applicant has approached to this Court by filing the

present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.156 of

2014 dated 09.05.2014, registered with Police Station Ambazari,

Nagpur, District Nagpur, for the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 409, 420, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code,

Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors

(In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act), Sections

24(1), 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

and Sections 45(1)(a), 45(s) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1949,

under which the present applicant, the Board of Directors and

employees were arraigned as accused.

2.

Heard.

3.

Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits

that, the FIR came to be registered on 09.05.2014, whereas, on

26ba-282-22.odt

2/10

27.07.2014, the applicant came to be arrested. It is pointed out

that, thus, from last 8 years the applicant is in jail. He submits that

if the maximum punishment for the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120B of the IPC is considered, the

applicant has already undergone excess period in incarceration.

4.

It is pointed out that, maximum punishment for Section 409

of the IPC, is imprisonment for life or ten years. He further submits

that, thus, even considering the same, the applicant has undergone

substantive sentence.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant further points out that,

after framing of charge on 11.12.2018, the first witness was

examined on 22.02.2019. Whereas, 60 witnesses have been

examined so far, which took long period of three and half years. He

points out that, about 40 witnesses are remained to be examined

and considering the period taken for examination of 60 witnesses,

there is no possibility that in near future, the trial will be concluded.

6.

He therefore, submits that keeping the applicant in jail for

uncertain period in the above referred backdrop would amount to

pre-trial punishment.

7.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in many similar cases by

considering the undergone period of incarceration, has released the

accused persons after commencement of trial and during the trial.

For this purpose, he has placed a reliance on the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Gokarakonda Naga

26ba-282-22.odt

3/10

Saibaba Vs. State of Maharashtra¹, Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The

Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal

Appeal No.693 of 2021, dt.27.07.2021, Jahir Hak Vs. State of

Rajasthan² and Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation and Another³.

8.

On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposes the

application and submits that, only 20 witnesses are remained to be

examined and as the trial is going on, the applicant may not be

released on bail.

9.

It is submitted that the offence is very serious and the

applicant is the main accused who has duped many investors. He

submits that the total amount involved is in crores. Thus, he