-1-
B.A .23/16
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (UNDER THE PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT), GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2016
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2016
(C.R.NO.336 OF 2015)
Pawandeepsingh Mahendrasingh Kohli
Adult, 33 yrs. Indian Inhabitant,
Permanently residing at plot no. 278,N­3
Behind RBL Bank, CIDCO
Aurangabad.

}
}
}
}
}
…Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
}
State CID Branch through
}
(At the instance of Dahisar police station) }
…Respondent
Appearances :­
Mr. Chandrakant Talekar , Ld. Adv. for applicant.
Mr. P. P. Chavan, Ld. Spl.P.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI A. D. TANKHIWALE
(C.R.NO.45)
DATED : 15th July, 2016.
ORDER
By
way
of
this
application,
the
applicant/accused
Pawandeepsingh Mahendrasingh Kohli is seeking regular bail under
-2-
B.A .23/16
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on filing of the charge­
sheet in Special Case No.24 of 2016. Dahisar police station authorities
have registered the offence against the present applicant/accused under
Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120­B r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 8 and 13 (1)(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.

The accused came to be arrested on 16/2/2016 and after
initially police custody period, he was
remanded
to Magisterial
custody. The allegations against the present applicant/accused as
appear from the charge­sheet are that, Ramesh Kadam, then Managing
Director of ‘Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Development
Corporation’ (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the said Corporation’) by
misusing his position, committed misappropriation of Rs. 1,47/­ crores.
It is further alleged that
Shri Ramesh Kadam had utilized the said
amount for purchasing the immovable property and Company by name
Komral Reality Pvt. Ltd.

It is further alleged that with the help of
Officers and staff members, he prepared the forged documents and
committed criminal breach of trust. Considering the gravity
of the
offences, the investigation was handed over to C.I.D. During the course
of the investigation, 10 to 11 persons came to be arrested.
3.

It is alleged that Ramesh Kadam is the main accused
wanted to purchase the land for the well­fare of students/candidates of
MPSC. The present applicant was the owner of land situated at Gat
-3-
B.A .23/16
No.16, Fathehpur, Aurangabad. Ramesh Kadam
on behalf of
Corporation decided to purchase the said land and for that purpose
fund of Rs. 10.75/­ crores was sanctioned. The said amount was
transferred in the name of the Applicant through RTGS. The applicant
got the amount of Rs. 3 crores. The another allegation is that the
applicant/accused instead of transferring the entire land to the
Corporation, major portion of the land was transferred in the name of
Shri Ramesh Kadam and thus, the applicant is conspired with Ramesh
Kadam and committed misappropriation of the amount diverted to
the Corporation. It is further alleged that the applicant was having plot
of land admeasuring 62 gunthas at Gat No. 162, Balapur, Beed Byepass,
Aurangabad. And he wanted to dispose off the same. Ramesh Kadam
fixed the aggregate cost of said land as Rs. 10.50crore. The said amount
of Rs. 7 crores out of the said amount was transferred
Joshyaba” (Ramesh Kadam’s institution).
by the applicant/accused in collusion
applicant/ accused
innocent
to “
The said act was also done
with
Ramesh Kadam.

The
seeking the regular bail on the ground that he is
and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged. He
is not connected with the Corporation
in any way.

After receiving
consideration he had executed the sale deeds. Those sale deeds were
registered one. The amount of consideration was transferred to him by
way of RTGS and therefore, there is not reason to suspect any foul play
in the said transaction. Furthermore,
Shri Ramesh Kadam was the
Chairman of the Corporation as well as Member of Legislator, therefore,
applicant had no reason to suspect representation made by him. It is
-4-
B.A .23/16
further submitted that whatever excess amount paid to the applicant
during those said transaction the said amount was returned to said
Ramesh Kadam. The applicant is not remotely concerned with alleged
forged and fabricated documents.

The ingredients of under section
406 and 409 of I.P.C. are not prima facie proved against the present
applicant.

The applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the
present offence.

The chargesheet in the present offence
is already
filed. The investigation is almost completed and therefore, the detention
of the applicant is unwarranted. The applicant stated that he would
not tamper the prosecution evidence in any way. He will not abscond if
granted bail. He further submitted that without admitted the case of
the prosecution and without prejudiced to his right he is ready to pay
the amount by installments and therefore, the applicant be released on
bail.
4.

The said application is strongly opposed by Ld. Spl.PP. It is
contended in the reply that the object of the Corporation is to utilized
the fund for the economy upliftment of backward classes particularly
Mantang and its twelve sub­castes. The facts of the charge­sheet
disclosed not just a non bailable offence but an offence of very serious
nature. The offences under section 120­B, 409 etc. are punishable with
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine.

The
criminal conspiracy has been hatched and successfully implemented by
the officials and the non officials resulting in siphoning­ off of crores of
rupees. The participation of the applicant in the alleged offence has
-5-
B.A .23/16
been sufficiently established during investigation. The offenes levelled
against the applicant and the other co­accused are not just like any
other offence of breach of trust of one individual or body by another
individual or body.

It is a special case where both officials and no
officials, in collusion with each other to cause wrongful loss of crores to
the public at large have committed grave offence of misappropriation.
5.

The
present
applicant/accused
committed
the
misappropriation more than 20 crores rupees in collusion with main
accused. The said fund/amount in fact were diverted to the
Corporation. Possibility of the hampering to smooth investigation is
possible. If the accused released on bail, the applicant/accused may
tamper with the prosecution evidence. There is also possibility of
absconding of accused.

Considering the nature of the offence
(economic offence) the application seeking the regular bail needs to be
rejected.
6.

Heard Ld. Counsel for applicant and Ld. SPP for State. As
stated earlier, the allegations against the accused are that by making
the conspiracy with the main accused Ramesh Kadam, the present
applicant/accused has grabbed the amount which was disbursed to the
Corporation. The applicant/accused infact has admitted the execution
of the sale deed in respect of the land at Aurangabad. According to him,
the sale deed is registered one and was valid and as he had received the
consideration has agreed
he has executed the sale deed and thus the
-6-
B.A .23/16
allegations regarding the conspiracy cannot be levelled against him. It
is to be noted here that the present applicant/accused had received the
consideration amount from the Corporation and thus he was required
to sale the entire land to the Corporation. However, he had transferred
the major portion of the land i.e. one acre 20 guntha in the name of
Ramesh Kadam. This prima facie
applicant/accused
by
making
the
itself shows that the present
conspiracy
committed
the
misappropriation. In respect of the land at Balapur, Aurangabad, Ld.
SPP has drawn my attention to the 7/12 extract of the said land(gut no.
152) which was transferred to his institution run by the accused with
the said land in fact mortgage with Malkapur Urban Co­operative
Bank. Instead of the charge on the said land, the present
applicant/accused proceeded to transfer the said land to “ Joshyaba”
Institute
alleged to have own by the main accused. Though these
transactions are registered one, it cannot be said that then present
applicant/accused entered in those transactions with clean hands.
7.

While seeking the bail, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant
has submitted before me that
both the properties i.e. property at
Aurangabad and Balapur are attached during the investigation. The
chargesheet is also filed on completion of investigation. The present
trial is not likely to be concluded within next few months and therefore
it will not reasonable to keep the applicant/accused beyond bar for
indefinite
period.

He further submitted before me
that
all the
necessary documents including the sale deeds are with Investigating
-7-
B.A .23/16
Agency and therefore, the question of tampering of the evidence does
not arise. He has placed reliance on the case of Sayed Mohammed
Masood Vs. Nilkanth Shelke, 2016 ALL MR (Cri)1610, The Honble
Lordships while granting bail to the accused facing the offence under
section 45 of the PMLA and section 420 of IPC has referred the case of
Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, AIR 2012 S.C.830: (2011 ALL SCR 2930). I
would like to refer para no. 25 which runs as under:­
“ 25. In this case, not only that the applicant is in
custody for a period more than 3 years, but there
is absolutely no possibility of the trial of this case
commencing within a reasonable time. This is not
disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor who
submitted that steps for bringing the cases in
respect of the scheduled offences allegedly
committed by the applicant are before the Special
Court under the PMLA Act, are being taken. As
aforesaid,
the
properties
belonging
to
the
applicant and his Companies have already been
attached, and the process of attachment is still
being
undertaken. Considering the volume of
evidence that would be required to be adduced
before the Special Court, it can be easily said that
the trial would take several years for getting
completed, after it commences; and presently
even the commencement thereof is nowhere is
-8-
B.A .23/16
sight. The applicant would be required to give
sureties/securities not only in the present case if
released on bail, but also in all the other cases of
scheduled offence, though they would form
a
part of the present case only. As such, it would
not be easy for him to abscond. In any case,
appropriate conditions can be imposed upon the
applicant to ensure that he would not abscond.
Detaining
the
applicant
further
in
custody
without granting bail, in the circumstances,
would be unfair, unreasonable and would violate
the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
8.

In the present case at hand, the chargesheet against the
accused is already placed on record. Ld. SPP has submitted before me
that considering the grievance nature of offence ( Economic offence)
and considering the role played by the applicant/accused by committing
the offence of misappropriation, the application needs to be rejected.
9.

He has placed the reliance on this point on the following
cases. In the case of Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Another, ( 2010) 1 Bom CR(Cri) 658, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court has held as under :­
“It is no doubt true that ordinarily when charge
-9-
B.A .23/16
sheets have been filed in the cases bail may be
granted on the basis of principle that it may
amount to pretria punishment if accused has to
remain behind the bars pending hearing and
disposal of the trial. Normally, therefore, as a
general rule, benefit of bail is granted in favour of
the accused, but the Court cannot overlook or
disregard the nature of accusations against the
accused concerned. Some times bail is granted
with stringent conditions in order to meet the
ends of justice after investigation is complete and
when the trial is pending. In the present case, it
appears from the submissions advanced before
me that further investigation as contemplated
under
Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in respect of accusations against the
present applicant is still in progress. Some of the
alleged offenders are still absconding according
to the learned APP. Under these circumstances,
considering the gravity and serious nature of
accusations against the applicant as also number
of past criminal cases pending against him, I
think the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Amravati was well within his discretion to deny
benefit
of
bail
to
the
present
applicant,
-10-
B.A .23/16
considering huge financial scandal of wrongfully
gaining quick or easy money worth crores of
rupees from the government exchequer. ”
Considering the prima facie serious nature
of accusations as also the incriminating nature of
material collected during the investigation, prima
facie one may believe the involvement of the
applicant/accused in serious economic offences
amounting to misappropriation of crores of
rupees from the government
criminal
breach
of
trust
money
as also
attracting
penal
provisions under sections 409 and 467 of the
Indian Penal Code. The legislature do prescribe
heavy
punishment
to
the
extent
of
life
imprisonment for the offences punishable under
sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code,
therefore, I think unless main witnesses on behalf
of the prosecution are examined in the trial Court
in respect
of both these cases benefit of bail
cannot be extended to the present applicant
irrespective of the ground of parity along with
other co­accused who may be mostly corrupt or
negligent government officials indicated in the
case. If the applicant is released on bail at this
stage, he may abscond and it would be difficult to
-11-
B.A .23/16
secure his presence at the time of trials in both
the cases. Furthermore it is likely that he may use
his influence to tamper with the evidence of
witnesses in view of probability of long sentences
of imprisonment, in such cases economic offences
are required to be proved in the larger interest of
public, society and the State because real culprits
shall be brought to justice.
10.

In the case of Pradeep s/o. Gyanhand Raisni Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, 2012 ALL MR(Cri) 3075, the Hon’ble Lordships
had observed that “ Accused charged for offences under Ss.409, 120B
of
IPC­
Alleged
to
be
amongst
key
persons
pertaining
to
misappropriation of public exchequer and funds of local self body­
Accused being one amongst bureaucrats and was person in power and
was successful in influencing state authorities as a result investigation
stalled completely and did not commence at all­ Though there was no
possibility of tampering as entire documentary evidence was in
possession of prosecution, there was possibility of influencing trial­
Accused being one amongst key person, held not entitled to bail.
11.

In the case of Rajendra s/o. Anil Mayur Vs.The State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Application No.1978 of 2013, in the High
Court Bombay Bench Aurangbad, the Hon’ble Lordships observed in
para 10 which reads as under:­
-12-
B.A .23/16
“ In the reported case AIR 1987 SC 1321( State of
Gujarat Vs.Mohanlal Jeetumalji Porwal and anr.)
cited for respondent, the Apex Court has made
following observations:­
“The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders, who ruin the economy of the
State, are not brought to book. A murder is
committed in the heat of passion, but economic
offence is committed with cool, calculated and
deliberate design with eye on personal profit
regardless of the consequences to the
community ”
In view of the facts and circumstances of this
case, this court holds that it is not the case where
the discretion can be used in favour of the
accused. The tendency of the persons like the
applicants can be curtailed only when such
persons are denied bail.”
12.

During the course of the arguments, the counsel for the
applicant/accused has submitted before me that the alleged transaction
in between the applicant/accused and the Corporation are that of civil
in nature and thus no criminal liability can be imposed against him.
On this point, the Ld. Spl.PP has drawn my attention to the case of
State of Punjab Vs.Pritam Chand and Ors.,2009(2)Supreme 23,
-13-
B.A .23/16
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “merely because an
act has a civil profile it is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal
outfit. A criminal case may arise even when breach of contract is
also there in that event there is no bar for prosecution under the
criminal law.”
13.

If
we
go
through
the
chargesheet
against
the
applicant/accused we find that the serious allegations regarding
(Economic offence) are made against him and other Co­accused. Prima
facie it appears that the applicant and other co­accused had diverted
the amount which was disbursed for the welfare of ‘Matang
Community’. In the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr.
Manmohan Singh and Anr., AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1185, wherein
Their Lordships have observed as under:­
“Today, corruption in our country not only poses
a grave danger to the concept of constitutional
governance it also threatens the very foundation
of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The
magnitude of corruption in our public life is
incompatible with the concept of a socialist,
secular democratic republic.

It cannot be
disputed that where corruption begins all rights
end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes
development and undermines justice, liberty,
equality, fraternity which are the core values in
-14-
B.A .23/16
our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the
Court is that any anti­corruption law has to be
interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as
to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is
to say in a situation where two constructions are
eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the
one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one
which seeks to perpetuate it. ”
14.

In the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs.Central Bureau
of Investigation, 2013 CRI.L.J. 2734, the Hon’ble Apex Court while
rejecting the bail application moved by the Petitioner observed thus:
“15. Economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different approach
in the matter of bail. The economic offence
having deep rotted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed
seriously and considered as a grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial
health of the country.
16.

While granting bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof ,the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the
-15-
B.A .23/16
character of the accused, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations.
In the case of The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh,
(1962) 3 SCR 622, wherein Their Lordships has
observed that among other considerations, which
a court has to take into account in deciding
whether bail should be granted in a non­bailable
offence, is the nature of the offence; and if the
offence is of a kind in which bail should not be
granted considering its seriousness, the court
should refuse bail even though it has every wide
powers under section 498 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.”
15.

Crores of rupees are involved in the present offence. The
serious allegations have been made regarding committing the
misappropriation of huge amount which was actually diverted to the
Corporation for the welfare of the weaker section and thus to me, this
is not the fit case to extent the benefit under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in
favour of accused, though he has shown his willingness to deposit the
amount of Rs. 4 crores in the Court. Considering the gravity, the bail
-16-
B.A .23/16
application needs to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order :­
ORDER
Bail Application No.43 of 2016 stands rejected.

Date : 15/07/2016.

Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(A. D. Tankhiwale)
Special Judge (Under the P.C. Act)
Gr. Bombay
: 15/07/2016.
: 16/07/2016.
:
” I affirm that the contents of this PDF file judgment are the same, word
to word, as per the original judgment.”
Name of Steno with Post
:­ V. V. Malgaonkar, stenographer (H.G.)

Name of the Judge (with Court no…) :­ H.H.J. Shri. A. D. Tankhiwale,
C.R.No.45
­ Date of Pronouncement of judgment :­ 15/07/2016.
­ Judgment signed by the P.O. on
:­ 16/07/2016.

­ Judgment uploaded on
:­ 16/07/2016.

-17-
B.A .23/16