IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (UNDER THE PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT), GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2016
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2016
(C.R.NO.336 OF 2015)
Santosh Shankar Ingle,
Age : 60 years, Occ.: Retired,
Indian inhabitant, residing at
Laxmi CHS Ltd., Flat No.206,
Lallchakki Area, Opp. Holly Family School,
Ulhas Nagarн4, Ulhas Nagar,
Maharashtra.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
…Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
]
State CID Branch through
]
(At the instance of Dahisar police station) ]
…Respondent
Appearances :н
Mr. P. G. Sawant, 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 : 30th June, 2016.
ORDER
1.

By way of this application, the applicant/accused Santosh
Shankar Ingle is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on filing of the chargeнsheet 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, 120нB r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
н2н
BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
and under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
2.

Before
filing
the
chargeнsheet,
the
present
applicant/accused had moved an application before the Hon’ble High
Court for grant of anticipatory bail (Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1116 of 2015). The same came to be rejected by the Hon’ble High
Court on 24/02/2016.
3.

The allegations against the present applicant/accused as
appear from the chargeнsheet are that, he was Managing Director of
‘Sahitya
Ratna
Lokshahir
Annabhau
Sathe
Development
Corporation’ (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the said Corporation’). At
present, he is retired from the said services. The said Corporation run
under the control of the Government of Maharashtra and is established
for the purpose of development of backward caste i.e. ‘Matang Samaj’
and 12 various sub castes. Ramesh Kadam was a Legislator and was
holding the post of Chairman of the said Corporation. The main
allegations against the present applicant/accused and other accused are
that they by making conspiracy grabbed the huge amount which was
disbursed to the Corporation for the welfare of backward class people.
4.

It is submitted by the applicant/accused that accused
Ramesh Kadam dragged him into illegal activities by applying
pressurised tactics. The applicant/accused was forced to issue high
valued cheques in favour of accused Kadam. In fact, this applicant was
not ready to sign on those cheques, but, accused Kadam by applying
force and by assaulting him, obtained his signature. This applicant had
н3н
BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
no option than to obey the commands made by Kadam. He, therefore,
made application /petition to the Social Welfare Department to relieve
him from the said post. This applicant/accused as well as other accused
and other office bearers are being dragged into this criminal case under
the coercion and threats. This applicant/accused has not played any
role in the present offence, nor he was having any intention to commit
such offence as levelled against him. He is not related with the said
commission of offence. No specific role has been played by this
applicant/accused.
5.

It is further stated by the applicant/accused that after filing
of the chargeнsheet, investigation has been almost completed. The
investigating authorities have already made search of house of the
present applicant/accused. No single penny was transferred in the
account of the present applicant/accused by way of cash or cheque.
The investigating agency has not found any document to show
involvement of the present applicant/accused in the offence. The
applicant/accused is not having any criminal antecedents. The
applicant/accused will not tamper the prosecution witnesses. All the
alleged documents are in the custody of investigating agency. The
applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the
Investigating Officer, as and when required.
6.

The application is strongly opposed by the learned Spl.P.P.

It is contended by the respondent/state that the primaнfacie
participation and main role of the present applicant/accused has been
sufficiently established during the investigation. The offence levelled
against the present applicant/accused is not just like any other offence
н4н
BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
of breach of trust of one individual or body by another individual or
body. It is a special case where both officials and non officials joined
hands to cause wrongful loss of Crores of Rupees to the public at large.
The nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present
applicant/accused is serious. The applicant and other accused have
committed serious economic offence. The present applicant/accused
along with the main accused and other accused siphoned Crores of
Government Funds of the Corporation. The present applicant/accused
was working with the Corporation since 1985н1989 from the post of
Office Assistant to General Manager. By making false resolution in the
Corporation, the present applicant/accused and other coнaccused have
diverted huge amount for their personal use. This applicant/accused
along with other coнaccused have also illegally transferred the
immovable property in their names by using the funds made available
to the Corporation. They have illegally appointed in all 31 persons to
various posts in the Corporation without following the due procedure.
7.

It is further contended by the respondent/State that
investigation of the case is not yet over. Chances of tampering the
prosecution evidence are also very much there. Considering the gravity
of the offence, the application needs to be rejected.
8.

I heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and
the learned Spl.P.P. I have gone through the chargeнsheet placed on the
record. The serious allegations have been made against the present
applicant/accused.

Perusal
of
the
application,
the
present
applicant/accused has mentioned that due to pressurised tactics played
by the main accused (Kadam), he has no option than to sign on the
н5н
BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
cheques. This fact definitely is not digestible. If really, the present
applicant/accused had suffered something from the main accused, he
could have raise the objection before the competent authority or police
authorities. He could not escape from the liability only by showing that
the main accused by giving threats got executed the cheques in
question. It is to be noted that the status of the present
applicant/accused was that of the Managing Director and thus, he was
holding responsible post in the said Corporation. It is alleged in the
chargeнsheet that the present applicant/accused along with other coн
accused have misappropriated the huge amount allocated to the
Corporation. The said huge amount was to be utilised for the welfare of
backward class persons. It further appears from the allegations in the
chargeнsheet that the present applicant/accused by making conspiracy,
transferred the land in the name of main accused by using the amount
allocated to the Corporation.
9.

As stated earlier, this is an economic offfence and
involvement of the amount is in Crores. The learned counsel for the
applicant/accused has submitted before me that no single penny
diverted in the account of the present applicant/accused and he had no
intention to commit any offence as alleged. He placed reliance on the
case of Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and another Vs. State of
Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 889. This case relates to common intention and
participation of the crime under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The question, whether really the present applicant/accused has played
vital role in committing the offence or not, needs to be decided on full
fledge trial.

н6н
10.

BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
On the point of economic offence and prevention of
corruption, I would like to refer here the case of Dr. Subramanian
Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another, AIR 2012 SUPREME
COURT 1185 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Lordships that,
“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 our preambular vision.
Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any antiн
corruption 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.”
11.

In the application, the applicant/accused has referred the
case of Kartar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC
569. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant/accused
that the importance of life and liberty i.e. the right of life with human
dignity of person has been declared as a fundamental right. Article 21
н7н
BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
of the Constitution of India protects the right of life which is the
precious right in the civilised society.
12.

At the cost of repetition, I would like to mention here that
the chargeнsheet clearly goes to show that the applicant/accused by
making conspiracy with the other coнaccused defalcated huge amount
of the State and also committed forgery in preparing the documents. It
is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant/accused if the
documents are forged one, why those documents came to be registered
with the office of the SubнRegistrar. Definitely, at this stage, it is not
expected to decide the question as to why and in what capacity those
documents came to be registered.
13.

In the case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, 2013 CRI. L. J. 2734, the Hon’ble Apex
Court discussed the entitlement of the accused for bail under Section
437 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the economic offences. It is held
by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under :н
“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 rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
needs to be viewed seriously and considered as 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
н8н
BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
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 and other similar considerations.”
14.

Besides this, though, the applicant/accused is retired from
the services of the Corporation, the chances of applying pressurised
tactics on the witnesses and tampering the prosecution evidence are
very much there.
15.

No doubt, the concerned investigating agency has filed the
chargeнsheet. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has
submitted before me investigation in the present offence is almost over
and the personal interrogation of the applicant/accused is not
warranted. The applicant/accused is still ready to coнoperate with the
investigating agency for the investigation, if any, to be conducted. The
present application is also supported by medical certificate and case
papers to show that the present applicant/accused is suffering from
ailments. As stated earlier, the serious allegations against the present
applicant/accused have been made in the chargeнsheet. While deciding
the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the role played by the
accused needs to be considered and on perusal of the allegations made
in the chargeнsheet, primaнfacie, it appears that the present
applicant/accused has played vital role in the commission of the
present offence and therefore, to me, I find no substance in the
н9н
BA 43/16 in RA 13/16
application and proceed to pass the following order :н
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.43 of 2016 stands rejected.

2.

Application stands disposed of accordingly.

Date : 30/06/2016.

Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(A. D. Tankhiwale)
Special Judge (Under the P.C. Act)
Gr. Bombay
: 30/06/2016.
: 30/06/2016.
:
” I affirm that the contents of this PDF file judgment are the same, word
to word, as per the original judgment.”
н Name of Steno with Post
:н B. Y. Jambhale, Stenographer (H.G.)

н Name of the Judge (with Court no…) :н H.H.J. Shri. A. D. Tankhiwale,
C.R.No.45
н Date of Pronouncement of judgment :н 30/06/2016.
н Judgment signed by the P.O. on
:н 30/06/2016.

н Judgment uploaded on
:н 01/07/2016.