:1:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
MHCC020030852024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY, AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2024
IN
FIR NO. 341 OF 2023
IN
C.R. NO. 60 OF 2023
(CNR NO. MHCC020030852024)
Asha Amit Vanani
Age : 42 years,
Residing at : C-601, Suyaprakash Residency,
Near Anuruddha Dwar, City Light, Unity City Road,
Surat 395 007
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW Unit-VI G.C.-4
At the instance of D.B. Marg Police Station,
Mumbai)
]
]
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Sr. Advocate Aabad Ponda a/w Ld. Advocate Gopalkrishna Nayak
i/b M/s. Favia Legal for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Saurabh Ghag a/w Ld. Advocate Divya Bhatia for
Intervenor.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 61)
DATE : 05th March, 2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 filed by Applicant Asha Amit Vanani for grant of
bail in C.R. No.60 of 2023 registered with EOW, Mumbai (C.R.

:2:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
No. 341 of 2023 registered with D. B. Marg Police Station,
Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as “IPC”).
2. As per the F.I.R. in this crime, according to first informant Sanjay
Jayantilal Bhansali resident of APMC Road, Mumbai lodged
report with the D. B. Marg Police Station on 21.10.2023
contending against the Directors of Niru Impex namely
Govardhan Govindbhai Vanani, Amruta Govardhan Vanani and
Amit Govardhan Vanani (present Applicants) in manipulation
with their family and relatives purchased the diamonds during
the period from September 2006 to June 2007 from M/s. Samir
Gems N. V. and M/s. S. Diamonds Ltd. Company valued for
Rs.41,73,04,051/- (Rupees Forty One Crores Seventy Three Lakhs
Four Thousand Fifty One only) but they have failed to pay a sum
for the said purchase within 120 days in order to cause cheating
to said M/s. Samir Gems N. V. Company and to keep M/s. Samir
Gems N. V. oblivious instead of weighing with sum even then
managed to get executed false Power of Attorney in the name of
his brother Devang Bhansali in respect of the properties which
were not standing in their names. However, those Directors failed
to get registration of said Power of Attorney deed or failed to get
transferred the immovable properties in the name of Devang
Bhansali. It is further alleged that the landed property bearing
Survey No.91/3, Katargram, Surat was mortgaged one even then
the accused entered in the transaction in respect of said property
and then got it cancelled. Thus, according to first informant, the
accused persons (present Applicants) who were under obligation
:3:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
to pay a sum of Rs.41,73,04,051/- (Rupees Forty One Crores
Seventy Three Lakhs Four Thousand Fifty One only) for the
diamonds in question to M/s. Samir Gems N. V. and those they
made their own financial gain and caused financial loss to M/s.
Samir Gems N. V. and cheated. He further contended that
Govardhan Govindbhai Vanani, his wife Amruta Govardhan
Vanani and his son Amit Govardhan Vanani and others who
knowingly helped them (accused) in the said crime and therefore
action against them also be taken for alleged cheating. With these
allegations, the concern Police Station registered the crime
bearing No.341 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B of IPC against present
Applicants and the other persons named in the F.I.R.
3. It is contention of the applicant that she may be released on
regular bail on the grounds that she has not committed any of the
alleged offences mentioned in the FIR as well never entered into
any transaction with the complainant. Even then, she has
attended and co-operated with the investigation agency on three
occasions. She has also submitted copies of 109 Registered Deed
of Sale executed by her from 2011 to 2023 and also Income Tax
returns. According to her, the FIR in question is silent about role
attributed to her in the alleged incident. There is no allegation
against her in the FIR. She came to be arrested only on the
statement one Anil Vanani on suspicion that accused No.1 and 3
in the crime had transferred her properties to applicant which is
completely contrary to the material on record. According to
applicant there are three accused persons apart from her and
Accused No.2 Amruta Vanani has been granted Anticipatory Bail
:4:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
by this Court whereas accused No. 1 and 3 have been granted
interim protection by Honble Bombay High Court which is still
continuing one. She further contended that the crime in question
consisting dispute with the complainant is of pure civil nature
and it will not attract any criminal offences as alleged. The FIR is
lodged at belated stage i.e. after 11 years from the date of alleged
incident. There is nothing to be recovered from her and also no
custody of whatsoever nature is required. According to her, she is
having two children and is having no criminal antecedents. There
is no possibility of her absconding. All allegations in the FIR are
totally false and baseless. The properties purchased by the
accused in this crime have been reflected in Income Tax returns.
Initially, preliminary inquiry bearing No. 43 of 2020 had been
closed way back on 15.02.2021 disclosing that no cognizable
offence has been committed. For the first time, the complainant
in this crime has raised a stale civil dispute in relation to the
transactions took place during June 2006 to May 2007. The delay
in filing FIR is unexplained which is more than 11 years.
4. The allegations in the FIR are without base and it has been filed
just to harass the applicant. She is not at all concerned with
alleged criminal conspiracy or mens rea. Thus, according to her,
she deserves to be released on regular bail and thus prayed for
grant of the same in her favour. She further submitted that she is
ready and willing to co-operate with Investigating Officer in
relation to Investigation as and when required. Thus, present
application is the outcome.
5. The prosecution and EOW/respondent objected this application
:5:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
by filing joint say Exh.2 on grounds that the applicant is well
educated and having registered deeds in respect of the landed
properties in her name at various places in the State of Gujarat.
She has not at all tendered documents in that regard with the
investigating authority. The possibility of suppressing those
documents by the applicant cannot be ruled out. If the applicant
came to be released on bail then possibility of hiding the material
documents in respect of landed properties located at Adajan,
District Surat, Gujarat cannot be ruled out. The applicant has
managed to get transferred the landed properties standing in her
name or in the names of other accused in the crime and again
those have been re-transferred and in that regard, further
investigation is going on. On effecting search of the house where
the applicant was residing, the investigating authority succeeded
in getting the Register maintained by Notary and in that regard
investigation is going on. According to Investigating Authority the
informantion collected is that during the period 19.09.2006 to
21.05.2007 the brother of complainant had provided rough
diamonds valued for Rs.41,73,04,051/-. Thereafter, during the
year 2007-2008, wanted accused Govardhan Vanani had
managed to get purchased the diamonds from his wife Amruta
Vanani and son Amit Vanani. Thereafter, some of the properties
have been given to the brother of the informant but without
getting registered the same, those have been taken back and
thereafter managed to get cancelled the registration in that
regard. Whatever the landed properties have been transferred by
the accused in this crime or sold out by them or their relatives as
well as purchased in the name of present applicant, its original
:6:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
documents are yet to be seized or recovered. Apart from this, the
detail investigation as to involvement of any close relative of the
applicant/accused in this crime is needed and if the applicant
came to be released on bail then she will instigate her relatives
and destroy the evidence. The alleged bogus documents
purportedly executed in favour of the complainant by the accused
in this crime are yet to be recovered and the applicant being
inhabitant of outside State, possibility of her fleeing away from
justice cannot be ruled out. Thus, on these grounds, the
respondent/EOW through Ld. SPP objected this application as
well as the prayer made by the applicant.
6. The first informant who intervened this application namely
Sanjay Jayantilal Bhansali resisted this application by moving an
intervention application (Exh.5) and thereby submitted that there
is sufficient material on record to show that present applicant is
having nexus with alleged transaction involved in this crime
along with other accused in this crime. Whatever the grounds on
which present application has been moved by the applicant, those
are totally false. The applicant is actively involved in conspiring
along with other accused. The statement of Anil Vanani who is
nephew of accused Govardhan Vanani and brother of accused
Amit Vanani reveals that the accused in this crime cheated the
first informant. According to the intervenor, the applicant cannot
claim her release on ground of parity in any situation. If applicant
came to be released on bail as prayed, the possibility of
tampering with the investigation and destroying the evidence at
the hands of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore,
custodial interrogation of the applicant is must to seek the
:7:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
relevant information connected with alleged conspiracy. Thus, the
sum and substance of the averments in the Intervention
application is that present applicant being culprit in crime in
question and has nexus with the alleged transaction is not
entitled to any relief i.e. regular bail or interim bail as prayed for.
Thus, intervenor submitted for rejection of this application.
7. The applicant through her counsel has submitted certain
documents pertaining to properties involved in this crime. Heard
Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Ld. SPP for the State/EOW at
length as well as Ld. Counsel for the intervenor/complainant.
8. In the light of facts and circumstances on record, following points
arise for the determination of the Court and findings thereon are
given for the reasons stated hereinafter:Sr. No
POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether the Applicant Asha Amit
Vanani is entitled for regular bail
under Section 439 of Cr.PC as
prayed ?

In the negative.

2.

What Order ?

As per final order.
REASONS
As to Point No. 1
9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Ld. Counsel for applicant
made submissions in the light of averments in the application and
emphasized the aspect that applicant is ready to co-operate with
the investigation as and when required and also pointed out
alleged merits and demerits in the prosecution case. By placing
on record certain documents, it has also tried to show that
:8:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
applicant’s conduct is fair so far as co-operating with the
investigation. During Judicial Custody, she has also co-operated
with the investigating authority. Whole case is based on
documents and the FIR is silent to show involvement of applicant
in the alleged crime. The applicant is still ready to hand over
relevant documents/material pertaining to the landed properties
standing her name in connection with the allegations. He further
submitted that applicant being a lady and having children, she
may be released on bail.
10.

In support of this application, Ld. Counsel for applicant relied
on following decisions :
(i) Lalit Chaturvedi and Ors V/s State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) NO. 13485 of 2023 decided on
06.02.2024.
(ii) Chanda Deepak Kocchar V/s Central Bureau of Investigation
2023 SCC Online Bom 72
11.

While arguing, Ld. SPP made submissions that this application
cannot be considered or decided as the applicant approached
firstly and directly before this Court without approaching Ld.
Trial Court as all the offences are exclusively triable by the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court. Therefore, according to
Ld. SPP on this count present application deserves to be rejected
and further added that still investigation is going on and
considering the allegations, thorough investigation has to be
carried. Thus, she prayed for rejection of the bail application.

12.

Ld. Counsel fo the intervenor also made his submissions in the
:9:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
light of intervention application. He also argued on the same
footing like the submissions by Ld. SPP .
13.

In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for applicant made submission that in
view of observation in paragraph No. 25 of the decision in
Sundeep Kumar Bafna V/s State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC
623, this court can entertain this bail application, though
applicant did not approach the Court of first instance i.e. Ld. Trial
Court/Ld.

Metropolitan
Court.

Here
said
observation
in
paragraph No.25 is reproduced as under :
“Since the Magistrate is completely barred from
granting bail to a person accused even of an offence
punishable by death or imprisonment for life, a
superior Court such as Court of Session, should not be
incapacitated from considering a bail application
especially keeping in perspective that its powers are
comparatively unfettered under Section 439 of Cr.PC”
14.

In the set of these facts and careful perusal of the application
indicates that all the offences leveled against applicant are
exclusively triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate. It is also
noticed that the Ld. Court of first instance has neither allowed
nor rejected any application simply because no such application
was ever filed before it. The judicial discipline warrants that every
first application in respect of Magistrate triable offences has to be
filed in the Court of First Instance. Thus, the applicant is
circumventing judicial discipline by approaching the Court of
Sessions directly. Hence, there appears no cause of action to
consider this application by this Court. Therefore, with due
respect, the rulings relied by the applicant are not helpful to the
applicant.

:10:
15.

Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
Another aspect is that admittedly investigation is in progress.
Secondly, considering the nature of offences in question and
allegations about alleged fraud, etc, thorough investigation is
justifiable one. As such having regards to all these aspects and
facts on record, the applicant is not entitled to be released on
bail. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
As to Point No. 2
16.

In view of the aforesaid reasoning and finding on point No.1 as
above, the application deserves to be rejected and as such Point
No. 2 is answered as per following order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No. 445 of 2024 filed by the
applicant Asha Amit Vanani in connection with C.R. No.60 of
2023 registered with EOW, Unit-VI, Mumbai (C.R. No.341 of 2023
registered with D.B. Marg Police Station) for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby rejected.

2. Accordingly, Respondent/I.O. to take the note of this order.
3. The present Bail Application No. 445 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 05.03.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Checked on
Signed on
: 05.03.2024
: 05.03.2024
: 05.03.2024
: 05.03.2024
*Note : Digisigner expired, hence no digital signature.

( S. B. Joshi)
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai.

:11:
Order in Cri. BA No.445-2024
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
05.03.2024 at 05.55 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Mr. Mohit M. Patange
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
(Grade-III)
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. S. B. Joshi
C.R. No.61
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
05.03.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
05.03.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
05.03.2024