CNR
MHNS010043052022
Order below Exh.1
in Cri. Bail Application No. 998/2022.
( Amit @ Amitkumar Bhavanishankar Sharma Vs State)
This bail application is moved by the applicant­accused
Amit @ Amitkumar Bhavanishankar Sharma under section 439 of the
Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail in connection with CR No.
172/2022 registered with Deola Police Station, Tal. Deola, Dist. Nashik
for the offence under section 420,405,406,409,467,468,120(B) r/w
sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.7.2022 in respect of alleged
incident of misappropriation and making of forged documents i.e.
F.D.R.
2.

It is stated in the application that the applicant­accused is
serving in Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Bhaur, Deola, Tal. Satana,
Dist. Nashik since October 2020 as Branch Manager. On 11.7.2022 he
had
informed
by
email
to
the
Zonal
Manager
about
the
misappropriation by accused Jaywant Trimbak Nikam and Bhagwan
Dyandeo Aher and stolen of 27 FDR receipt from the bank and
thereafter on 13.7.2022 FIR was lodged against Bhagwan Dyandeo
Aher the sweeper of the Bank.
The applicant­accused was arrested on 16.7.2022 in CR
No.170/2022 of Deola Police Station and was produced before the
learned JMFC, Kalwan on the same day and remanded to PCR till
22.7.2022 and thereafter till 25.7.2022 and thereafter he was
remanded to Magisterial custody, since then he is in judicial custody
and bail application No.947/2022 was moved. Thereafter, on
27.7.2022 applicant­accused was taken in custody of the present crime
and produced before the Court on 28.7.2022 and remanded to Police
custody till 4.8.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Hence,
..2..

the present bail application is moved stating that he has not committed
the offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in present crime.
He has done his duty promptly. The most of the investigation is over
and nothing is remained about recovery and the offences under section
467 and 409 are punishable imprisonment for life or upto 10 years. His
antecedents are clean. He will not misused the liberty granted to him.
He is ready to abide the conditions that may be laid down by this
Court, these and other grounds set out in the application, he prayed for
bail.
3.

The prosecution objected the bail application.

I.O. has
filed his report and submitted the relevant papers of the investigation
done till this date.
4.

Heard, both the parties. Perused record.

5.

The learned counsel for applicant­accused Shri. G.P. Sanap
submitted that it is the applicant­accused who has informed his
superior officer regarding the irregularities in the bank. He is in no way
benefited by the alleged misappropriation. He further submitted that as
per the prosecution the alleged offence took place from 3.7.2018 till
this date and the applicant­accused had joined the said Branch in
October­2020 and therefore, he submitted that the applicant­accused is
innocent and has not committed the offence as alleged by the
prosecution. He also pointed out that, 60 days have been passed since
the arrest of the accused. In respect of the alleged misappropriation
already CR No.170/2022 is filed and subsequently for the same
transaction this crime is lodged against the applicant­accused.
Therefore, the investigation for all purpose is over. The police have
seized entire documents pertaining to the alleged crime. Nothing is to
Cri. Bail Application No.998/2022.
..3..

be recovered from the present applicant­accused. All necessary
documents are available in the bank and the Investigating Officer has
access to record the bank and investigation will not be hampered in
any way if the applicant­accused released on bail. Hence, he prayed to
release the applicant­accused on bail. During his argument, he relied
upon S.V. Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka, AIR 2016 (3) Kar. R. 321.
6.

On the other hand, the learned APP Shri. Suryvanshi
argued that it is an economic offence and misappropriation of the
public fund worth Rs.2,35,41,000/­ and the investigation in progress to
trace out the further misappropriation of the amount with reference to
the complaints of the customers who have reported similar types of
complaints. He further submitted that applicant­accused was the
Branch Manager and was controller of the branch and was responsible
to the day to day transaction of the bank, he was expected to conduct
the banking business as per the rules and regulations of banking as laid
down by the RBI. However, the Branch Manager has apparently
involved in the present crime and played active role in commission of
the said crime. Therefore, he submitted to reject the bail application.
7.

On perusal of the record it appears that the applicant­
accused was Branch Manager of the said Bank from 7.10.2020 to
13.7.2022. There are in all 36 alleged FDR were requested by the
customers and in all Rs.1,82,05,000/­ was the amount of FDR,
however, all these amounts were withdrawn by either bearer cheque or
by cash. The withdrawal amounts are ranging from Rs.50,000/­ to
7,00,000/­ including Rs.35,00,000/­ of the present first informant
Nishigandha Jadhav and all these amounts were withdrawn with the
endorsement of the applicant­accused being the Branch Manager.

..4..

Thus, instead of amounts of the customers required to be fix deposit,
these all amounts were withdrawn by the bearer cheques purported to
be signed by the customers and by cash by obtaining their signature
fraudulently and thus customers were kept in dark and forged FD
receipts were issued to them. During the investigation initially 27 FDR
were disclosed as missing from the bank. Thus, there is a huge
misappropriation of the bank deposits that too by the Bank employees
including the cashier, sweeper, Dy. Manager and the Branch Manager.
8.

The economic offences are committed on large scale in the
country. The banking business is the back bone of the economy of the
Nation. People have faith in the banking system in the country and if
such type of incident occurred the people loose their faith in the
banking system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already observed
regarding increasing in economic offences in the country, which has
affected the fiber of country economic structure and held in
Nimmagadda Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 AIR
(SC) 2821, wherein it is held that,
“26. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been
seeing an alarming rise in white­collar crimes, which has
affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure.
Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions
on the development of the country as a whole.
27. 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 tampers with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be
kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the
Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for
believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the Court
Cri. Bail Application No.998/2022.
..5..

dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether
there is a genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in
support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have
the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt”.
9.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain
guidelines while dealing with bail applications regarding the economic
offences in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs V. Vijay Sai Reddy,
2014(1) AIR Jhar R. 328, wherein it is held that,
“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 and other similar considerations. It has also to be
kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the
Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for
believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the Court
dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether
there is a genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in
support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have
the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt”.
Again in The State of Nihar and anr. Vs Amit Kumar @ Bacha
Rai, 2017 AIR (SC) 2487, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
“12. Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal
propositions canvassed by the learned counsels, it should be
noted that there is no straight jacket formula for consideration
of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The Government’s interest in
preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling.
So also is the cherished right of personal liberty envisaged under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 of the Code of
..6..

Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the bail provision, places
responsibility upon the courts to uphold procedural fairness
before a person’s liberty is abridged. Although ‘bail is the rule
and jail is an exception’ is well established in our jurisprudence,
we have to measure competing forces present in facts and
circumstances of each case before enlarging a person on bail.
14. We are also conscious that if any undeserving candidates
are allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will the
society be deprived of deserving candidates, but it will be unfair
for those students who have honestly worked hard for one
whole year and are ultimately disentitled to a good rank by
fraudulent practices prevalent in those examinations. It is well
settled that socioeconomic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of
bail. Usually soci­economic offence has deep rooted conspiracies
affecting the moral fiber of the society and causing irreparable
harm, needs to be considered seriously”.
Recently the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while dealing with the
bail applications of the accused, who are facing charges of
misappropriation
and
fraud
worth
Rs.9,45,00,000/­
allegedly
committed by the applicant­accused in Andhra Bank, Itwari Branch
held in Mangesh s/o Ranjit Jagtap Vs State 2021(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri)
339 that,
“18. The jurisprudential logic of a different approach to
economic offences is not only the gravity of the crime, equally
relevant is the ability of the offender, who is likely to be an
influential person with either status or standing or means, to
influence the course of trial. Economic offences are committed
for personal profit and the casualty is the well being of the
society. Such offences affect the economy of the country.
Economic offences are committed with cool and cold blooded
design, involve deep rooted conspiracy, and the intent is to
satisfy personal greed regardless of the consequences and harm
to sociatal interest.
19. Economic offenders pose a serious challenge before the
criminal justice system. Devious mind set armed with unlimited
ill gotten wealth may enable the economic offender to influence
the investigation, tamper with the evidence and pressurize
Cri. Bail Application No.998/2022.
..7..

witnesses.
20. While bail and not jail is the rule, economic offences fall
within the exceptions. Economic offences constitute a class apart
warranting, nay necessitating, a different approach. The liberty
of the accused and the presumption of innocence must
undoubtedly weigh in the exercise of discretion. However, the
right of the State to arrest, investigate and detain economic
offenders and the interests of the civil society must also be borne
in mind. The seemingly competing interests need delicate
balancing. An unidimentional approach restricted to the
perspective of the accused would cause an immense disservice to
the justice dispensation system.
21. Irrefutably, the presumption of innocence and the liberty of
the accused are cherished facets of the right to life enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unduly prolonged trial
may, in the factual context, transgress the guarantee of life and
personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
Equally sacrosanct is the right of the society in general and the
victim in particular to justice, to legitimately expect and aspire
that the criminal is prosecuted and punished. A safe and secure
environment is an integral and intrisic facet of the right to
dignified living. Judges are duty bound to ensure that the
competing rights and aspirations are delicately balanced. An
univariate cogitation on the rights of the accused may
conceivably eviscreate the credibility of the justice dispensation
system. Presumption of innocence is not a fetish. The right of
the State to arrest, investigate and detain economic offenders
deserves equal, if not more respect and consideration when
pitted against the competing right of the economic offender to
liberty. The chant of the Mantra “liberty and presumption of
innocence” must be patiently heard and bestowed due
consideration. However, the Courts are duty bound to ensure
that in the din the voice of the competing interests of the society
and the victim is not muzzled”.
10.

The Investigating Officer has pointed out that the amount
of Rs.35,00,000/­ was withdrawn by the signature of the applicant­
accused and therefore, the first informant has suffered loss of
Rs.35,00,000/­ when it was expected that at her request the said
..8..

amount was to be kept in fix deposit. It appears from the entire
documentary evidence placed on record, there is criminal conspiracy
committed by the applicant­accused including other accused, who are
bank employees and entrusted with the public fund and therefore, the
present application is devoid of merit and considering the guidelines
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the bail
applications relating to the economic offences the present applicant­
accused being Branch Manager was responsible for the day to day
banking transactions and instead of keeping control over the branch he
himself was the party to the conspiracy and actively played his role,
when such huge amounts were withdrawn on the basis of the bearer
cheques, it cannot be said that he was unaware about all these
proceedings because the documents placed on record apparently bear
his signatures.
12.

Investigating Officer submitted that the signatures of the
applicant­accused are taken for the purpose of comparing it and
obtained handwriting expert opinion. Thus, the investigation is at
delicate stage. Investigating Officer has shown sufficient progress in
investigation.
13.

So far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel
Shri. Sanap is concerned, it is relating to quashing of FIR, which is the
second FIR based upon the same sets of facts relating to section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. Therefore, while considering the present bail application
said aspect cannot be taken into considering and hence, said case law
not helpful to him in present bail application. Considering the situation
and the fact that investigation is in progress, present bail application is
liable to be rejected. Hence, following order.

Cri. Bail Application No.998/2022.
..9..

ORDER
1.

Bail Application bearing No. 998/2022 is hereby rejected.

2.

Inform to the concern police station accordingly.

SHINDE
MADHAV A
Date­16.09.2022
Digitally signed by
SHINDE MADHAV A
Date: 2022.09.17
11:27:34 +0530
( M. A. Shinde )
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.