Deepali Jagannath Satoskar v. The State Of Maharashtra

Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 720 OF 2015 Ms. Deepali Jagannath Satoskar ... Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the State.

I.O. Mr. B.D. Magar, P.S.I., Deccan Police Station, Pune City present. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE : JULY 15, 2015 P.C.:

This Application is moved for pre-arrest bail, as the applicant/accused is apprehending arrest in M. Case No. 11 of 2014 registered with Deccan Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4, 25 of the Arms Act..

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and many other persons have invested money in M/s. Omega I Trade Industries, as assurance was given of repayment of double the amount. The complainant and her relatives invested nearly Rs.20 lakhs. In the beginning, for investment of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- was returned and therefore, the complainant and her relatives trusted the transaction of Omega I Trade Industries, however, an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was not 1 / 3

returned at all and the complainant realized that she was duped for the said amount. So, she filed a written complaint with the learned Magistrate, who gave directions under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. to the police to investigate. Pursuant to this, police found material against principal accused Vasant Bhalwankar and present applicant/accused and coaccused. Hence, the offence was registered against the applicant/accused and other accused.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is innocent. She was in the employment of principal accused Vasant Bhalwankar, therefore, she received some amount as part of her job and she is not the beneficiary of that amount. The applicant, therefore, be protected by pre-arrest bail.

4.

Learned APP opposed the Application. He relied on the statements of witnesses. He submitted that some other cases are registered against the principal accused Vasant Bhalwankar and applicant/accused. He submitted that the applicant/accused had received Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant and some amounts from other witnesses. She was helping the principal accused Vasant Bhalwankar in collecting money. Hence, no protection be granted to the applicant/accused. 2 / 3

5.

Perused the FIR and the statements of witnesses. It appears that this applicant/accused was a employee of principal accused Vasant Bhalwankar who is absconding. Prima facie nothing is shown that how or whether the applicant/accused is a beneficiary of the investments made by complainant and other witnesses. Though she had received these amounts, it is alleged that it was part of her employment. Considering the role played by the applicant/accused, I confirm the order of pre-arrest bail dated 20th May, 2015 granted to the applicant/accused on the same bail bond and surety. The applicant/accused is directed to attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and cooperate the police.

6.

The Application for Anticipatory Bail is disposed of on above terms. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 3 / 3