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

26ba-734-22.odt

1/9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.734 OF 2022

(Prashant s/o Jaideo Wasankar Vs. State of Maharashtra, PSO Frazerpura, Amravati)

_______________________________________________________________

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.291 of

2014 dated 08.11.2014, registered with Police Station : Frazerpura,

Amravati, District : Amravati, for the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of

Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999

(MPID Act) 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 08.11.2014 whereas, on

11.11.2014 the applicant came to be arrested. He submits that if the

maximum punishment for the offences punishable under Sections

26ba-734-22.odt

2/9

406, 420 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,

charges were framed long back, however, no witnesses have been

examined till date. Therefore, there is no possibility that in near

future, the trial will be concluded. He therefore, submits that

keeping the applicant in jail for uncertain period in the above

referred backdrop would amount to pre-trial punishment.

6.

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

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.

1

(2018) 12 SCC 505

2

2022 SCC Online SC 441

3

2022 SCC Online SC 695

26ba-734-22.odt

3/9

7.

On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposes the

application. 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 prays

that this Court may not grant bail to the applicant.

8.

The learned APP in support of this submission, has placed

reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,

in the case of Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat⁴,

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan⁵, State of Bihar and

another Vs. Amit Kumar⁶ and Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central

Bureau of Investigation⁷.

9.

In the backdrop of submissions of both the parties, I have

perused the charge sheet, the FIR, application and the reply of the