Umesh Ravaji Bhange And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2409 OF 2024 Swapnil Bhausaheb Gawali ...
Applicant Vs.
State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1773 OF 2024 Ashok Jayram Saroj ...
Applicant Vs.
State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2003 OF 2024
1. Umesh Ravaji Bhange
2. Sanket Anil Gavai ...
Applicants Vs.
State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent ------------ Mr. Nikhil Manohar Pujari, for Applicants Mr. Tamveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State in ABA No.1773/24 Mr. Megha S. Bajoria for Respondent-State in ABA No.2409/24 Mr. Hemant Bhangale, API, Manmad City Police Station. --------- CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2024 P.C. :
.
In Anticipatory Bail Application No.1773 of 2024 (applicant-Ashok Jayram Saroj), this Court granted interim relief in favour of the applicant by order dated 12.07.2024.
2.
The said applicant was working as Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, where the offences were said to have been committed. 3.
Thereafter, this Court granted interim relief in favour of the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2003 of 2024 (applicantsUmesh Ravaji Bhange and Sanket Anil Gavai), by order dated 13.08.2024. 1/3
Subsequently, by order dated 10.09.2024, this Court granted interim relief in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2409 of 2024 (applicant-Swapnil Bhausaheb Gawali). It is to be noted that the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application No.2003 of 2024, were working as Deputy Manager and Single Window Operator in the said bank and the applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2409 of 2024, was working as a cashier. 4.
The learned APP, on instructions, submits that all the applicants have cooperated with the investigation in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the interim order passed in their favour. 5.
The subject FIR in the present case, was registered at the behest of the local MLA, wherein the applicants and others have been arraigned as accused persons in the backdrop of allegations made by a number of victims to the effect that forged and fabricated fixed deposit receipts were issued to them, due to which they had suffered serious financial loss. 6.
This Court while passing interim orders in favour of the applicants found that in the first place applicant-Ashok Jayram Saroj i.e. Branch Manager of the said bank had caused an FIR to be registered bearing No.0213 of 2024, registered prior in point of time with regard to the aforesaid scam.
7.
While passing interim orders in favour of the applicants, this Court also found that they had made out a prima facie case in their favour for detailed reasons recorded in the said orders. 8.
A perusal of the said interim order shows that the aforesaid reasons hold good for allowing the applications, particularly when the applicants have cooperated with the investigation.
9.
In view of the above, the interim orders passed in favour of the applicants are made absolute and the applications are allowed, subject to the applicants continuing to cooperate with the investigation, including 2/3
remaining present before the investigating officer as and when called. They shall not tamper with the evidence and they shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any other persons concerned with the case. (MANISH PITALE, J.) Ajit Pathrikar 3/3