Parikshit Sunil Aurangabadkar v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 913.125.19 aba.doc ISM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2019 Parikshit Sunil Aurangabadkar .....Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent Mr. Viresh V. Purwant advocate for the applicant Ms. S. S. Kaushik APP for the State Mr. Ashok Kakujpure, API, EOW, Nashik City CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE :

JANUARY 16, 2019.

P.C.

In Crime No. I-224/22018 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik and E.O.W. Nashik for offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail.

On earlier occasion, applicant's similar prayer was turned down by this Court vide order dated 21/11/2018 and confirmed by

2 913.125.19 aba.doc the Apex Court in SLP vide order dated 04/12/2018. Shri. Purwant, the learned counsel for the applicant while trying to make out a fresh case for grant of pre-arrest bail would invite the attention of this Court to the fact that charge-sheet in the matter is already filed. According to him, applicant is neither the director of the Firm in question nor the alleged amount of Rs. 11 Crores has come to the coffers of the Firm. He would as such submits that in the wake of above, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted.

The learned APP opposed the claim and submits that there is sufficient material on record to infer the prima facie involvement of the applicant in crime in question. According to her, applicant is Chartered Accountant and Auditor of the company who has received the offered amount. He has pretended that he is one of the director of the company and instigated people and other companies to invest in the company. The active involvement of the applicant can be inferred from documents which were published with intention of

3 913.125.19 aba.doc wide publicity. There is sufficient material in the investigation which pinpoint direct involvement of the applicant in crime in question. In addition to above, the reasons recorded by this Court while rejecting the prayer on earlier count on 21/11/2018 still holds good and germain to the cause. That being so, no case for grant of prearrest bail is made out. Application fails, stands rejected. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]