Javed Pashu Sayyad v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1260 OF 2016 Javed Pashu Sayyad ... Applicant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
--- Ms. Nagma Tandon i/by Amol A. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent- State. --- CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 01st JULY, 2016 P.C. :
Applicant/accused in Crime No. 166 of 2014 (Charge-sheet No.45 of 2016) for the offences punishable under sections 342, 392, 395, 384, 385, 386 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Market Yard Police Station, Pune by this application is praying for releasing him on bail on filing the chargesheet against him.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for Applicant/ accused at sufficient length. By taking me through the statement of the informant as well as her husband, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is falsely 1/5
implicated in the crime in question because of the rivalry of the family of the informant and co-accused named - Vinit Grover. During investigation, no test identification parade came to be recorded. Statement of only interested witnesses came to be recorded but the statement of the injured is not recorded nor CCTV footage is seized by the investigator. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that gold allegedly recovered is at the instance of accused no.1, who is already released on bail. She further argued that out of two other accused persons, one had secured a pre-arrest bail and one more accused is also released on bail. Learned counsel further argued that cheque of Rs. 25 lakh, which was allegedly extorted by the accused persons is in fact issued by the husband of the informant as a part payment of the amount due but she with co-accused- Vinit Grover could not report matter of cheating to the police.
My attention is drawn to the FIR lodged by coaccused - Vinit Vijay Grover against the husband of the informant. It is further argued that statement of Devendra Parekh is in total variance with the averments of the first informant. It is further argued that first FIR came to be lodged after six months and statement of husband of the informant came to be recorded after two years from the alleged incident. 2/5
As against this, according to the learned APP, considering the criminal antecedents of the present applicant and his modus operandi to commit crimes in similar manner, he is not entitled for bail. Learned APP argued that after preliminary enquiry, the FIR came to be registered and therefore, there is delay.
Perused the papers of investigation including FIR. It is obvious that there is some dispute between-Devendra Parekh, husband of informant Mrs. Dharini Parekh, and coaccused -Vinit Grover. The said co-accused has lodged FIR against Devendra Parekh on 19.07.2014 for the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery etc.. However, the case in hand is that of an accused, who has allegedly played totally a different role in the crime in question. As such the inter-se dispute and rivalry between Devenra Parekh and Vinit Grover is of no consequence.
Perusal of the FIR shows that on 2.6.2014 in night hours, the present applicant posed himself as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, having office at Colaba, Mumbai. Though there is discrepancy in registration number of the vehicle, the papers of investigation show that the accused persons had used Innova with becon yelow light for committing offence. It is seen from the investigation papers that under the threat of arrest of Devendra Parekh, the present 3/5
applicant and co-accused had extorted an amount of Rs.3 lakh and 18 tola of gold at night hours on 02.06.2014, apart from obtaining a cheque of Rs. 25 lakh from Devendra Parekh. It is also seen that thereafter also on 03.06.2014 the present applicant had extorted an amount of Rs. 3.80 lakh from the informant and her husband apart from appropriating 27 tolas gold from them. This was done by the present applicant by posing him to be a high ranking police officer. Considering the role played by the present applicant in the crime in question, recovery of the ingots of gold and vehicle from other accused is not of much relevance. An accused is entitled to bail only when the court is assured that in future he will not repeat the commission of similar offence.
In the case in hand, it is seen that the present applicant had adopted similar modus operandi of cheating several persons. It is seen that he had posed himself as Nitin Jadhav, the Assistant Police Inspector. The chargesheet contains the transcript of the audio recording, wherein according to the prosecution, the applicant had posed himself as Nitin Jadhav, Assistant Police Inspector. According to the learned APP the applicant is also involved in the offences registered in the year 2016 vide crime no. 65 of 2016, crime No. 72 of 2016 and crime no.
the effect that the present applicant had similarly posed himself as government pleader of High Court, son-in-law of the of then Chief Minister of the State etc..
Considering the totality of the circumstances, this cannot be considered as the case for releasing the applicant on bail. Repetition of offences of similar nature by adopting same modus operandi by impersonation cannot be ruled out. All that apart the role of the applicant in the crime in question, as reflected from the charge-sheet, is also relevant. In the result, the bail application is rejected. (A. M. BADAR, J.) .....
5/5