BA 6015
1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2015
IN
C.R. No.329 OF 2014
Sanjay Narayan Jangam
Age: 45 Years, Occ: Business,
Residing at Flat no.005, CWing,
Krishna Gokul Garden,
Thakur Complex, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai
]
]
]
]
]
]…Applicant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Malwani Police
Station, Mumbai)
]
]
]…Respondent.
Advocate Ashish Dubey for the Applicant.
SPP Advocate Malankar for the Respondent/State.
CORAM :
SPECIAL JUDGE, MPID ACT.
D. P. SURANA (C. R. No.36)
DATED :
03rd November, 2015.
ORDER:
1.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C., whereby
accused / applicant Sanjay Narayan Jangam, who was came to be arrested
on 27.02.2015 i.e. eight months back, is seeking bail in C.R. No.329 of
2014, for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468,
471, 170 r/w sec.34 & sec.120B of the I.P. Code and sec.3 & 4 of the
BA 6015
2
Maharashtra
Protection
of
Interest
of
Depositors
(In
Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999 (in short M.P.I.D. Act).
2.
It is the case of prosecution that, co accused Rakesh Seth and
Abdul Khan were searching for the persons in need of flats in Mumbai.
Such persons were induced that they would be given MHADA flats at
concessional rate. That, such persons were then taken to Amir Imran
Academy situated at Sai Sadan Building, Shop no.3/4/5 MHADA,
Malwani, Malad West, Mumbai 95, where coaccused Amir Khan, Imran
Khan, Sarfaraj Khan and Sanjay Narayan Jangam (present applicant) used
to give them further false representation of providing MHADA Flats on the
pretext that, they are having good relations with MHADA officers. Such
persons were shown forged and false documents of MHADA and thereby
were induced to deposit money. More amount incash was extracted from
such victim on the pretext of extra FSI. Then, such persons, from whom
amounts towards MHADA flats were accepted, were taken in front of
MHADA office. Pramod Kedar Singhania was falsely personated to be a
MHADA officer
and extra amount of Rs.87,000/ incash was again
extracted from such victims on the false promises providing MHADA flats.
It is alleged against the applicant that, he induced in all five
investors and an amount of Rs.43,20,000/ was duped of those five
investors and an amount in lakhs, by way of cheque, has also come to his
account.
3.
Heard Advocate Ashish Dubey for applicant and SPP Advocate
Malankar for State. Also heard IO PSI Panchangane. Perused the
application.
3
4.
BA 6015
Advocate Dubey submitted that, applicant has acted as a
commission agent. That, the amount which was received to the applicant
was redeposited in the account of main accused. Except commission of Rs.
20,000/, not a single amount has pocketed by the applicant. He further
submitted that applicant has tried to recover the said amount but,
unfortunately the cheque issued by the main accused were dishonoured.
According to Advocate Dubey, it shows bonafide on the part of applicant.
He further submitted that, applicant is not the main accused. Chargesheet
is already filed. Investigation is completed. No documents were recovered
from the possession of applicant. Neither, it is alleged that some documents
are in his custody. That, main accused are already released on bail, which
shows that there is no possibility of tampering. That, the applicant has no
criminal antecedents. That, the applicant was not interrogated in judicial
custody, which also shows that his further custody is not required in the
said crime. He further submitted that the bank account of applicant is
frozen and no purpose will be served in keeping the applicant behind the
bars. He placed his reliance on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja V/s. State of Gujarat, (AIR 1984 SC
372) and that of Hon’ble High Court in the cases of Amiya Kumar
Gourishankar Jha V/s. State of Maharashtra, (in Bail Application No.
751 of 2013), Tarunkumar Bherumal Mutha Jain V/s. State of
Maharashtra, (in Criminal Bail Application No.815 of 2015) and
Renish Balan V/s. The Sr. Inspector of Police and Anr., (in Criminal
Bail Application No.1169 of 2013).
5.
As against this, SPP and IO in one voice submitted that the
offence is of serious nature. Applicant has not only induced the investors
4
BA 6015
but, has also received the amount in cheque and cash. That, from
inception, the applicant, hand in gloves with main accused and in
conspiracy, has perpetrated the crime. Hence, SPP submitted that the
applicant may not be granted bail.
6.
On perusal of final report it seems that the five investors, as
mentioned in Exh.2, has specifically named the applicant. Out of the five
investors / witnesses, witness Surendra Kamat has also alleged that,
applicant has also received an amount of Rs.20,000/ towards commission.
All the five investors / witnesses has alleged that they were induced by the
applicant. As per IO, amount in cash and cheque has also come to the
account of applicant which shows his involvement in the crime.
7.
This is not the case wherein, only because the coaccused are
released on bail on deposit of certain amount, this applicant is also entitle
for the parity claimed. Applicant seems to be prima facie involved in the
said crime. Giving inducement to the victims residing in city like Mumbai,
to provide them flats by itself shows that the default is not because of the
business loss but, was perpetrated with fraudulent intent at the inception.
8.
Irrespective of the fact as to what role is played by the
applicant, it seems that offence punishable under section 120B of IPC is
also levelled against the applicant, hence, he is liable for the acts done by
the other coaccused. Hence, I am of the view that applicant, against whom
prima facie case is made out, is not entitle to be released on bail.
9.
Having regard to the citations relied by the applicant, it is
5
BA 6015
pertinent to note here that the way in which the crime was perpetrated by
itself shows that, at inception, there was modus operandi of the accused,
who hatched conspiracy, to defraud the poor persons by showing them
dream of their own houses. Hence, this is not an simple case of fraudulent
default or deception but, this is more serious offence than the mere default
or routine deception. Hence, applicant accused against whom there is
strong prima facie case is made out, in my view, is not entitle to be
released on bail. In the result, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
Application stands rejected.
Date 03/11/2015.
(D.P. Surana)
Spl. Judge, MPID Act &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Order Dictated on : 03/11/2015
Transcribed on
: 07/11/2015
Signed on
: 16/11/2015
“I affirm that the contents of the PDF file order are the same, word to word, as
per the original order.”
Name of Steno with post
: Arun A Mudaliyar
(H.G. Stenographer)
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) : HHJ Shri. D. P. SURANA (CR 36)
Date of pronouncement of order
: 03/11/2015
Order signed by the P.O. on
: 16/11/2015
Order uploaded on
: 23/11/2015