Exh.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE
(UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2015
(IN REMAND APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2015)
Shri Vijay Kasbe
…Applicant/Accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra (State CID)
(at the instance of Dahisar police station)
…Respondent
Appearances :н
Ld.Adv. Sanjeev Kadam for the applicant.
Ld.A.P.P. J.V.Desai for the State.
CORAM :
DATED :
H.H.THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI R.M.PANDE
(C.R.NO.45)
11th August,2015
ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
The applicant Vijay Kasbe has prayed for bail u/S 437 of Cr PC in
crime No.336 of 2015 registered at Dahisar police station. The said crime
is registered at Dahisar police station against the applicant/accused and
others alleging that, they have committed an offence punishable u/S 406,
408,409,420,465,469,468,471,384,120нB r/w 34 of IPC and u/S 7,13(1)
(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
2.

The applicant/accused came to be arrested in connection with the
said crime on 19.7.015 and thereafter, from time to time the
..2/н
BA 41/15
.. 2 ..

in RA No.33/15
applicant/accused was remanded to PC. Finally the accused is remanded
to JC as per order dt.1.8.2015. Thereafter, the applicant has prayed for
bail in the said crime.
3.

The brief facts giving rise to the present application are such that,
One Dr.Sudhakar Bhalerao, Member of Legislative Assembly, has
raised a Legislative Assembly Question (LPQ) in the Assembly Sessions in
the month of December,2014. The said question was with reference to the
misappropriation of the funds of Sahityaratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe
Vikas Mahamandal (herein after referred as Уthe CorporationФ). It came
for discussion on 12.12.2014.
4.

During the course of discussion an assurance on behalf of the
government was given regarding inquiry into the matter.

As per this
assurance, the State CID has received the directions for inquiry into the
matter. As per these directions CID had carried the detail inquiry into the
matter. During the course of inquiry it is found that, accused No.1 Ramesh
Kadam was the Chairman of the said Corporation from the period from
13.8.2012 to 12.12.2014. During the said period it was found that several
irregularities have been committed by Ramesh Kadam, the then Chairman
of the Corporation.

The amount of Rs.41.47 crores was diverted to
Joshaba Central Consumer Coнoperative Society for implementing certain
projects/schemes. Ramesh Kadam is the Chairman and applicant Vijay
Kasbe is the Secretary of the said society. Out of the amount, which was
diverted in Joshaba Central Consumer Coнoperative Society it is alleged
..3/н
BA 41/15
.. 3 ..

in RA No.33/15
that, accused No.1 has misappropriated the amount by using the same for
purchase of flats and properties in his name.

He has used the same
amount for his personal gain. The amount of Rs.8 crores was transferred
in the name of Komral Reality Private Ltd., which is in the name of accused
Ramesh Kadam.
5.

Several instances were found in the inquiry, in which it was noticed
that huge amount of Rs.147 crores have been misappropriated by the
accused Ramesh Kadam and others.

Therefore, after conducting
preliminary inquiry Dy.S.P. Sanjeev Ghadge filed a report with the police.
On the basis of this report present crime was registered at Dahisar police
station and the investigation of the crime was carried out.
6.

As said the applicant is one of the accused in the said crime, who
came to be arrested on 19.7.2015. Initially some PC was granted to him
and finally he was remanded to JC on 1.8.2015.
7.

The applicant/accused prayed for bail u/S 437 of Cr PC on the
grounds that, he is attending the investigating office since long and he is
coнoperating the investigation. It is contended that, material investigation
with the accused is over.

It is contended that, applicant is not the
Government employee and was not having control over the affairs of the
Corporation in any manner. It is contended that, accused Ramesh Kadam
was the Chairman of the said Corporation and he only had control over the
affairs of the corporation.

..4/н
BA 41/15
8.

.. 4 ..

in RA No.33/15
It is contended that, investigation which is being carried out by CID
in the present mater is defective, as no any preliminary inquiry by the
specialized branch is carried. It is contended that, the allegations in the
FIR are not based on the statutory report, such as audit report.
9.

It is contended that, accused is having fixed place of resident and
there is no possibility that he may flee away from justice. It is contended
that, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the
bars. On these grounds it is contended that, applicant is entitled for bail.
10.

On this application I have called for say of the Investigating Officer.

Investigating Officer filed affidavit stating therein the grounds for opposing
the bail application of the applicant. It is contended by the IO that the
offence is of serious in nature and investigation is in progress.

It is
contended that, considering the nature offence alleged to have been
committed by the accused, the accused is not entitled for bail. IO has filed
detail say in the matter and has separately mentioned the grounds for
opposing the bail application of the applicant/accused. It is contended
that, in view of seriousness of offence and the fact that investigation is in
progress, the applicant/accused is not entitled for bail.
11.

I have heard learned advocate for the accused and the learned A.P.P.

I have also gone through the grounds taken by the accused as well as say
filed by the Investigating Officer.

..5/н
BA 41/15
12.

.. 5 ..

in RA No.33/15
It is contended by the applicant/accused that, the main accused in
the present case is Ramesh Kadam, who has now filed application for
anticipatory bail, which is under consideration. As such, the contentions
that accused no.1 is absconding may not stand to any reason.

It is
contended that, applicant/accused has coнoperated with the investigation
since beginning and all the allegations are against the accused no.1
Ramesh Kadam only.

It is contended that, the investigation with the
present applicant is almost over and therefore, no purpose would be served
by putting the present applicant behind the bars. It is contended that,
applicant is ready to coнoperate with the investigation and as such, the
applicant be released on bail.
13.

Learned A.P.P submitted that offence alleged to have been committed
by the accused is of serious in nature. Further none of the contentions
taken by the applicant/accused would stand to any reason for releasing
him on bail. According to him a due preliminary inquiry was conducted
and thereafter, crime was registered against the accused. It is contended
that, huge amount has been misappropriated and all the accused hatched
the criminal conspiracy to commit the crime. It is contended that, in such
situation it cannot be said that, applicant/accused has no role to play in
the matter. Apart from this, it is contended that, there is primaнfacie case
against the applicant/accused and as such, applicant/accused is not
entitled for bail.

Learned A.P.P took me through the entire say and
grounds submitted therein and contended that, the applicant/accused is
not entitled for bail.

..6/н
BA 41/15
14.

.. 6 ..

in RA No.33/15
To consider the argument of both the sides, it is necessary to go
through FIR. The allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature. The
misappropriated amount, alleged to have been committed, is about Rs.147
crores. The manner in which the offence is committed, is such that funds
were sought from the Government for the corporation and thereafter, those
funds, which was public money, were diverted/siphoned towards the
different societies of the accused Ramesh Kadam. One of the such society is
Joshaba Central Consumer Coнoperative Society. FIR clearly shows the
manner in which the amount was misappropriated.
15.

Regarding the present applicant it has been mentioned that accused
Vijay Kasbe is the Secretary of Joshaba Central Consumer Coнoperative
Society. It primaнfacie appears from the entire contentions in FIR and say
that accused no.1 Ramesh Kadam was managing its affairs regarding
misappropriation of such amount through the present applicant.
Moreover, during the course of investigation it primaнfacie appears that,
several vehicles were seized which were purchased from the funds of
Corporation, which were diverted to Joshaba Central Consumer Coн
operative Society. There is a strong primaнfacie case which would show
that, amount was misappropriated and the present accused has played a
major role in it. Moreover, from the manner in which the amount was
misappropriated, primaнfacie, it appears that present applicant was key
person in managing the entire affairs of the absconding accused. Further,
the instances detected during the course of investigation such as, vehicles
were purchased from the funds, huge amount was found in the account of
the applicant, primaнfacie supports the allegations made against the
..7/н
BA 41/15
present applicant/accused.

.. 7 ..

in RA No.33/15
In view of this, there appear to be strong
primaнfacie case against the applicant/accused.
16.

In this regard the aspect which needs to be considered is that, huge
public amount is misappropriated and the present applicant appears to
have played major role in the same.

As such, there is a primaнfacie
evidence against the present applicant/accused in serious crime.
17.

Further, the investigation is at too initial stage.

Only because
absconding accused has filed anticipatory bail application, I do not find
that, said fact entitles the present applicant for bail, as prayed.

The
applicant/accused was the Secretary of the Joshaba Central Consumer Coн
operative Society, to which the major amount was transferred. All these
instances would go to show that, the applicant participated in the a serious
crime, in which public money is involved and there is primaнfacie evidence
regarding the acts done by the applicant. In view of all above, I do not
find that, the applicant is entitled for bail, as prayed.
18.

Considering the role of the applicant/accused, the apprehension of
the prosecution that, applicant/accused may tamper with the evidence of
the prosecution and may pressurize the witnesses, does not appear to be
baseless. It is to be noted here that, the investigation is at initial stage and
if, at this stage the applicant/accused is released on bail then possibility
that he may tamper with the evidence of the prosecution or may pressurize
the witnesses cannot be ruled out.

..8/н
BA 41/15
19.

.. 8 ..

in RA No.33/15
Considering the nature of offence, the amount involved and role of
the accused in commission of crime and the fact that, the investigation is at
too initial stage, I do not find that, present applicant is entitled for bail as
prayed. In view of all above, I pass the following order :н
ORDER
1. Bail application No.41 of 2015 is rejected.
2. Application is disposed of accordingly.

(R.M.PANDE)
Special Judge (Under PC Act)
Gr. Bombay
Dt.:11/8/2015
Dictated on
Typed on
kps/
: 11.8.2015
: 11.8.2015
УI affirm the contends of this PDF file order are the
same, word to word, as per the original orderФ
Name of Steno with post
:н Kishor Prakash Sherwade
Stenographer (H.Gr.)

Name of the Judge (with :н Ravindra M. Pande, (C.R.No.45)
Court No.)
Addl.Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay
Date of pronouncement of :н 11.8.2015
Order
Order signed by the P.O. on
:н 11.8.2015
Order uploaded on
:н 24.8.2015
../н