Pushpak S/O Gopal Bharuka (In Jail) v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Akot City, Akola

1 1108ba624.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 624 OF 2016 (Pushpak Gopal Bharuka Vs. The State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Avinash Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Aakash Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the State.

CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : AUGUST 11, 2016 Heard learned Senior Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the case diary. It is seen from the case-diary that even though the allegation has been made against this applicant that he indulged in illegal share trading in spite of the fact that he was not registered broker or sub-broker of the stock exchange and was doing so by running a parallel stock exchange, I could not see any material on the basis of which, it could be said that prima facie the allegation is substantiated. Learned A.P.P. for the State has invited my attention to the statement of this applicant, wherein he has admitted that he indulged in such illegal business. The statement of the applicant made during the course of investigation to a police officer would not be of any help to the prosecution. The learned A.P.P. has also placed reliance

2 1108ba624.16 upon the statement of Prakash Rajmal Zanwar in order to show the prima facie involvement of this applicant. However, it appears that this statement is nothing but a hearsay evidence as the witness admits that whatever he had learnt about the activities of this applicant, was not on the basis of his personal knowledge, but on the basis of what he was told about by one of the co-accused. Therefore, this statement would not be relevant, even at this stage. Learned A.P.P. for the State has also pointed out to me the print outs of some relevant data taken from the computer kept in the office of the co-accused Dinesh Bhutda. This data, prima facie, indicates dealing in some shares. However, admittedly, it has not been taken from the computer kept in the office of the applicant. This data also indicates nothing about this applicant having done something for his entering into these transactions.

With such being the nature of prima facie evidence, I do not think that any purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for any longer period of time. Besides, necessary seizures have been made either from the office or at the instance of this applicant. Admittedly the order refusing grant of police custody remand has not been challenged and that the applicant, right from beginning, was in M.C.R. This would reasonably indicate that even the

3 1108ba624.16 investigating officer did not think it necessary to have custodial interrogation of this applicant.

For all these reasons, I am inclined to grant this application.

The application is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- together with one solvent surety in the like amount on the conditions that he shall attend regularly on the dates fixed by the Court, shall cooperate the Court in expeditious disposal of the case against him and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

JUDGE wwl

4 1108ba624.16 CERTIFICATE "I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order."

Uploaded by : W. W. Lichade Uploaded on : 12/8/2016 wwl