IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (UNDER THE PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT), GREATER MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2016
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2016
IN
SPECIAL CASE NOS.104 OF 2015 @ 108 OF 2015
(C.R.NO.336 OF 2015)
Vaishali Vishal Mudale,
Age : 34 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o.: Aн2, Nagnath Mistry Compound,
Kaju Pada, Ganesh Chowk,
Borivali (E), Mumbai.

]
]
]
]
]
… Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
]
(State C.I.D.)
]
(At the instance of Dahisar police station) ]
… Respondent
Appearances :н
Mr. Nitin Pradhan with Mr. P. P. Raul, Ld. Advocates 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 : 7th January, 2017.
ORDER
(Dictated in the open Court)
1.

By way of this application under Section 437 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/accused Vaishali Mudale has
prayed for grant of bail. The applicant/accused is in judicial custody.

н2н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
Crime No.336 of 2015 came to be registered with Dahisar police station
for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 384, 120нB r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 7, 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.

The applicant/accused had joined Lokshahir Annabhau
Sathe Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
Corporation) as a Clerk and later on, she was posted as Deputy General
Manager, Administration, in the said Corporation. On the basis of F.I.R.
lodged by Deputy Superintendent of Police, State C.I.D., Mr. Sanjiv
Ghadge, Crime No.336/2015 came to be registered. In the said F.I.R.,
he made allegations that the persons connected with the said
Corporation and other private persons by forming the conspiracy
diverted the huge amount of the Corporation to various entities,
societies and they further had utilised the said amount for their
personal use and benefits. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the said
Corporation was established under the Companies Act and the very
purpose of establishment of the said Corporation is to give benefits to
‘Mang’ community and other subнcastes thereof. After completion of the
investigation, the prosecution agency has filed the chargeнsheet bearing
No.104 of 2015 against several accused including the Chairman of the
Corporation by name Ramesh Nagnath Kadam. In the said chargeн
sheet,
however,
there
appears
no
name
of
the
present
applicant/accused.
3.

Being the Deputy General Manager, Administration, the
applicant/accused was required to deal with the work of salary, attendance,
transfer of employees of the Corporation. She never attended the
н3н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
meeting of the member of Directors, nor participated into day to day
administration or management of the Corporation. Before and after
filing of the chargeнsheet, the applicant has coнoperated with the
investigation agency. She has submitted all the relevant documents
before the investigating agency. She never caused any disturbance in
the investigation process. On the basis of some statements, she came to
be arrested on 21/12/2016 in connection with the said offence.
4.

The applicant/accused is seeking relief of bail on the
ground that since June, 2015, she has coнoperated the investigating
agency. If she is released on bail, then also, she will coнoperate with the
investigating agency. The allegations made against her are false one.
She cannot be held responsible for resolutions passed and signed by the
Board of Directors. The other coнaccused namely Laxmi Lokhande,
Nakusa Kadam, Vyomesh Shah, Kiran Contractor, Suhas Dumbre, Vilas
Bhandarkar, Ajitsingh Sethi came to be released on bail by this Court. If
she is released on bail, she will not tamper the prosecution evidence in
any manner. She would not flee from justice. She is ready to give an
undertaking to deposit Rs.21,00,000/н by way of installments. She be
released on bail on any such terms and conditions as the Court may
deem fit and proper.
5.

The said application is strongly opposed by the prosecution
agency through the learned Spl.P.P. The facts of the case discloses that
this offence is not just nonнbailable offence, but, offence of very serious
nature. A criminal conspiracy has been hatched and successfully
implemented by the officials and nonнofficials of the Corporation
resulting in siphoning off Crores of Rupees. There is prima facie case
н4н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
against the present applicant/accused. The offence alleged is 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 н the officials
and nonнofficials of the Corporation joined hands to cause wrongful
loss of Crores to the public at large.
6.

The Maharashtra Government had appointed Ramesh
Kadam as a Chairman of the Corporation on 13/08/2012. Thereafter,
said Ramesh Kadam had appointed the applicant/accused as Assistant
General Manager, Administration, on 16/08/2012 by violating the
seniority of other employees. The applicant/accused in collusion with
said Ramesh Kadam, siphoned the Crores of Government funds of the
Corporation and during the enquiry, the applicant/accused was unable
to explain some queries made by the prosecution agency.
7.

The
applicant
has
purchased
land
at
Aurangabad
admeasuring 4 acres for consideration of Rs.51,00,000/н. The said
transaction is totally illegal and for the registration of the same, she
went to Aurangabad from Bombay by flight. She had illegally obtained
loan of Rs.20,00,000/н from the Corporation and Rs.12,75,000/н from
one Yogesh Shinde, close associate of Ramesh Kadam. She had also
obtained the amount of Rs.21,00,000/н from Pawandeep Kohali,
coнaccused, by R.T.G.S. During the enquiry, she did not give
satisfactory answers regarding all these transactions.
8.

Being the Deputy General Manager, Administration, she
was responsible for preparing the Agenda of the Board meetings. She
conspired with the main accused Ramesh Kadam, Santosh Ingale and
н5н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
Shrawan Bawne to siphon Rs.36.63 Crores of the Government funds
and for that purpose, she assisted, aided, abetted and helped them in
preparing forged resolution Nos.83/14/4 and 84/13. It was her duty to
verify the documents and resolutions before its implementation.
Though, the original resolution Nos.83/14/4 and 84/13 are now shown
as missing from the Corporation, she is in possession of those
proceedings.
9.

It is further stated by the prosecution agency by way of
reply that the very object of the Corporation to uplift ‘Matang Samaj’
and its 12 subнcastes. But, the applicant/accused and other coнaccused
have totally ignored the main object. If the applicant/accused is
released on bail, the possibility of winning over the prosecution
witnesses cannot be overruled. There is every possibility of misusing
her contact and influence for disturbing the investigation. The
possibility of her fleeing from justice also cannot be ruled out. The
applicant/accused has played main role in implementing the
conspiracy. There is ample documentary evidence available against her
and therefore, the application needs to be rejected.
10.

I heard both the learned counsels at length.

11.

At
the
outset,
applicant/accused
has
applicant/accused
belongs
the
submitted
to
learned
before
SCнST
counsel
me
category,
for
the
that
as
the
the
loan
of
Rs.20,00,000/н was disbursed to her, being the employee of the
Corporation, for purchasing the plot and constructing house. Till date,
she has repaid the part of the loan amount by way of 30 E.M.Is. He
н6н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
further has submitted before me that she has not committed
misappropriation, cheating, breach of trust while receiving the loan
from the Corporation. He further has submitted before me that likeн
wise the applicant, the Corporation has disbursed loan to many
persons.
12.

Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has further
submitted before me that the applicant/accused had obtained the loan
from Yogesh Shinde by R.T.G.S. payment. Said Yogesh Shinde is not an
accused and the prosecution agency, till date, has not made any
enquiry with said Yogesh Shinde. He further submitted before me that
similarly, the applicant/accused had also taken the amount of
Rs.21,00,000/н from Pawandeep Kohali, coнaccused by R.T.G.S. All
these transactions are legal one. All these transactions are civil in
nature. In order to show the bonafides, the applicant/accused is ready
to deposit the amount of Rs.21,00,000/н by way of installments. The
applicant/accused was coнoperating with the prosecution agency right
from the beginning and therefore, her personal interrogation is not
necessary. He further has drawn my attention to the powers of the
Special Court under the Criminal Law Ordinance Act, 1944.
13.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the applicant/accused has drawn my attention to the order passed by
my learned predecessor while granting bail to some of the coнaccused
on depositing some amount and therefore, he claimed the principle of
parity. No doubt, some of the accused are released on bail by this
Court. However, while releasing them on bail, my learned predecessor
has considered the role played by those accused. The learned Spl.P.P.

н7н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
has further submitted before me that the present applicant/accused
played vital role while committing misappropriation of the huge fund
of
the
Corporation,
particularly
by
misplacing
the
resolution
Nos.83/14/4 and 84/13. By way of these resolutions, she conspired
with other coнaccused and main accused for siphoning of amount
Rs.36.63 Crores. He has further submitted before me that the status of
the
present
applicant/accused
was
Deputy
General
Manager,
Administration, and thus, she was required to keep the watch regarding
day
to
day
affairs
of
the
Corporation.

However,
she
by
assisting/aiding/abetting the main accused and other coнaccused
helped them for committing forgery regarding the resolutions in
question and therefore, the role played by the applicant/accused
cannot be said to be very minor or negligible one. He further has
submitted before me that the applicant/accused, in fact, being the inн
charge of the Administration, was custodian of the proceedings of the
Corporation and by showing those resolutions as missing, she made an
attempt of screening of the main accused. The learned Spl.P.P. has
drawn my attention to the case of Himanshu Chandravadan Desai &
Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, Appeal (Cri.) No.1526 of 2005 and has
submitted before me that the case of the applicant/accused is more
serious than the case of coнaccused, who are released on bail
considering the role played in the present offence.
14.

The learned Spl.P.P. has further submitted before me that
the alleged loan transactions are also suspicious one. Considering her
status, in fact, the applicant/accused was not entitled to get such huge
amount by way of loan, though, she got loan amount by way of
R.T.G.S. He has further submitted before me that on making enquiry
н8н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
with the applicant/accused regarding all these transactions, she was
unable to give the proper explanation.
15.

I have gone through the documents placed on record by
the prosecution agency regarding the allegations made by the
applicant/accused. Prima facie, it appears to me that the role played by
the applicant/accused seems to be vital one.
16.

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 :н
УEconomic 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. 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
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
н9н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
and other similar considerations.Ф
17.

Learned Spl.P.P. has placed reliance on the case of Fida
Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another,
[2009] 0 ALL MR (Cri) 3315, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held
as under :н
УIt is no doubt true that ordinarily when charge sheets
have been filed in the cases bail may be granted on the
basis of principle that it may amount to pretrial
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
н 10 н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
of bail to the present applicant, considering huge
financial scandal of wrongfully gaining quick or easy
money worth crores of rupees from the government
exchequer.Ф
УConsidering
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
misappropriation
government
of
money
offences
crores
of
amounting
rupees
from
to
the
as also criminal breach of trust
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 coн
accused 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 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
н 11 н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
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.”
18.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others. Vs.

Shri Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC 870, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as
under :н
У7. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like
cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to
maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous
consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only
contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a
jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS,
being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal
thievery. The socioнpolitical system exposed to such a
dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble
under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to
democracy and social order, being not only anti people,
but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the
economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless
nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause
turbulence
shaking
of
the
socioнeconomicнpolitical
system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and
vibrating society.Ф
19.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the applicant/accused has submitted before me that in order to show
н 12 н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
the bonafides, the applicant/accused is ready to deposit the amount of
Rs.21,00,000/н. However, as stated earlier, it was brought to my notice
by the learned Spl.P.P. that the financial liability against the present
applicant/accused is not restricted to Rs.51,00,000/н only, but, the
applicant/accused had assisted, aided, abetted the main accused and
other coнaccused for siphoning the amount more than Rs.36.63 Crores
and therefore, he has further submitted before me that only by making
payment of Rs.21 Lacs, the applicant/accused is not entitled to get
relief of the bail.
20.

I find substance in the arguments advanced by learned
Spl.P.P. that considering the status, the applicant/accused, if released
on bail, would make an attempt to tamper the prosecution evidence as
she was holding the post of Deputy General Manager, Administration,
in the Corporation. Considering all these facts on record, I find that the
applicant/accused is not entitled for bail and therefore, I proceed to
pass the following order :н
ORDER
Bail application stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.

Date : 07/01/2017.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(A. D. Tankhiwale)
Special Judge (Under the P.C. Act)
Gr. Mumbai.

: 06 and 07/01/2017.
: 07/01/2017.
:
н 13 н
BA 68/16 in RA 60/16 in
Spl. Case Nos.104/15 @ 108/15
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
B. Y. JAMBHALE,
09/01/2017 Ц 3.30 p.m.

STENOGRAPHER (H.G.)

Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Shri. A. D. Tankhiwale,
Room No.)
C.R.No.45
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT / ORDER
of 07/01/2017.

JUDGMENT
P.O. on
signed
by 09/01/2017.

JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on
09/01/2017.

/
ORDER