1 8 ba 364.2021.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION(BA) NO. 364 OF 2021

Shri Dnyaneshwar s/o Govindrao Bawane ..vs..

State of Maharashtra

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

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

and Registrar'

s orders

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

Shri A.S Manohar, Advocate for Applicant.

Shri I.J. Damle, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.

CORAM

: VINAY JOSHI, J.

ORDER RESERVED ON

: 23/06/2021

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 30/06/2021

Hearing was conducted through Video

Conferencing.

2.

The applicant/accused is seeking grant of

regular bail in Crime No.251 of 2020 for the offence

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Maharashtra

Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial

Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as

“MPID Act”) and Section 45 (s)of the Reserve Bank of

India Act, 1934. On the basis of report dated

13.11.2020 lodged by one of the investor namely

Ganesh Chafle, crime was registered, in which the

applicant came to be arrested on 17.11.2020 and

since then, he is in jail.

3.

Learned Counsel for the applicant while

agitating claim of bail, has led stress on the point that

the main accused namely Vijay Gurnule has formed a

Company and floated various investment schemes.

2 8 ba 364.2021.2021

The applicant was mere an employee of the Company

and was working on the instructions of the Chairman

of the Company i.e. Vijay Gurnule. The applicant is

also one of the investor who was, in fact, cheated for

huge amount. Though the applicant was referred as a

Founder Member in the Company brochure, however

the master data no where discloses that the applicant

was Director or part of the management of the

Company. According to the applicant, he did not

receive any benefits, however his bank account along

with his wifes’ account were seized, blocking amount

of Rs.8 lakhs. Moreover, bail is claimed by invoking

the rule of parity by pointing towards release of co-

accused namely Tanmay Jadhav.

4.

On the other hand, the State has stiffly

resisted the bail application by filing affidavit-in-reply.

The entire prosecution case in brief has been narrated

in the reply. In sum and substance, the applicant in

privy with Vijay Gurnule has established ‘Metro Vision

Buildcon (India) Limited’ (for short ‘the Company’).

They floated lucrative investment schemes to allure

public at large under a promise of paying high

returns. The hard earned money of several persons

were accepted and duped. The applicant took active

role in promoting various schemes and had also posed

himself as a Founder Member of the Company. The

applicant also received the monitory benefits from the

Company, which is evident from his bank account.

3 8 ba 364.2021.2021

The State has referred several statements of the

witnesses filed in tabular form to contend that the

applicant took active part, arranged several investors’

meeting, encouraged hundreds of investors, even

promised for giving plots and as such he played an

active role in the entire fraudulent affair. It is

submitted that still several investors are approaching

to the Investigating Agency with their grievances, and

forensic audit is going on. In resistance the learned

A.P.P. appearing for the State has placed reliance on

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466 wherei