Avdhoot Dnyaneshwar Sonawane v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:13013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 770 OF 2024 AVDHOOT DNYANESHWAR SONAWANE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Harshal P. Randhir APP for Respondent : Mr. D. J. Patil ...

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 03-07-2024 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The applicant seeks bail in C.R.No.299 of 2022 registered with Police Station Muktainagar, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

It has been alleged against the applicant that after sanctioning loans, instead of disbursing it to the borrowers, the applicant and the co-accused siphoned the money. 4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. The false allegations

have been levelled against him that he has been absconding. However, he himself was in the village. The investigation has been completed. To show bona fide, father of the applicant had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- with the finance company. He has roots in the village and ready to undertake not to leave the village till the conclusion of the trial.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the respondent opposed the application contending that poor borrowers have been cheated. The financial fraud has been played. He was disappearing for many months after the crime was registered. Hence, he does not deserve bail. 6.

The purpose of detention of accused of the investigation is to avoid the inference in the investigation, tampering with the prosecution witnesses and a fair investigation. 7.

The offence is based upon bank amount. Statements of the so-called borrowers who have been allegedly cheated have also been recorded. The investigation has been completed and the chargesheet is filed. There are no antecedents to the discredit of the applicant. Believing on the statement of the learned counsel for the applicant that he was not absconding, considering the papers and the period required to conclude the trial, his further detention would serve no purpose. However, to protect the interest of the prosecution, certain conditions may be imposed.

8.

Hence, the order:-

ORDER

i) Bail application is allowed.

ii) Applicant Avdhoot Dnyaneshwar Sonawane be released on bail, on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.50,000/-, with one solvent surety of the like amount, in the above crime for the aforesaid offences, on the conditions that, (a) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (b) He shall not leave the place of his residence without leave of the Trial Court, till the conclusion of the trial. (c) He shall furnish his mobile phone number to the police with an undertaking that he would not change it till conclusion of the trial.

(d) He shall assist the Investigating Officer as for as further investigation is concerned.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE rrd