Deepak Suresh Nagpure v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3403 OF 2024 Deepak Suresh Nagpure ...Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w. Mr. Kunal Pednekar, for the Applicant Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, APP, for the Respondent/State. VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2025.01.04 17:53:09 +0530 CORAM :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

JANUARY 02, 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This application is preferred seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 285 of 2023 registered at Yeola police station for the offences punishable under sections 386, 388, 364A, 420, 166, 167 and 506 read with 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (the Penal Code) and section 3 read with 25 of Arms Act, 1959. 3.

Pooja Vanjari, the first informant, lodged report with the allegations that her brother Prasad Bhadange was in financial constraints. The co-accused Amol Nade represented Prasad Bhadange that he was not required to approach the financial institution for financial assistance and asked Prasad Bhadange to meet Sachin Patil, another co-accused. Sachin Patil and his associates abducted the first informant, her brother Prasad Bhadange and sisters and made them to execute instruments in ...1

favour of a number of persons. The first informant, her brother and relatives were forced to execute the instruments on the point of gun. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs only was paid to Prasad Bhadange. The co-accused allegedly extorted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs per month towards interest on the said amount.

4.

The applicant is a stamp vendor. The role attributed to the applicant is that of keeping the instruments ready even before the informant party and the co-accused reached the place of the applicant and making the first informant and other executants execute those instruments without disclosing the contents thereof. 5.

Mr. Vagal, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the informant party has made allegations against a number of persons. This Court has granted pre-arrest bail to the alleged transferee as well as the Sub-Registrar before whom the instruments were executed and registered. The applicant is similarly circumstanced.

6.

Ms. Ganapathy, the learned APP, resisted the prayer for bail. It was submitted that the complicity of the applicant becomes evident from the fact that the applicant had kept the instruments ready even before the executants had approached him. The learned APP, however, fairly submitted that few of the co-accused have been granted pre-arrest bail.

...2

7.

I have perused the allegations in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was the scribe of the instruments which the informant party was forced to execute. Evidently, those instruments were duly registered and the executants have acknowledged the receipt of consideration. The complicity of the applicant as a confederate in the conspiracy to divest the informant party of the property by making them to execute and register the instrument sans consideration, as alleged, for the mere reason that the applicant was the scribe of those instruments, prima facie, appears a contentious matter. 8.

To what extent a scribe can be held liable for the alleged fraudulent execution of instruments, is a matter which warrants adjudication. It does no appear that there are allegations that the applicant is the beneficiary of the alleged transactions. 9.

In the light of the role attributed to the applicant, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not seem warranted for an effective investigation. Thus, the liberty of the applicant deserves to be protected. The applicant appears to have roots in society. The possibility of tampering with evidence and fleeing away from the justice, appears remote. I am, therefore, inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the following order.

...3

ORDER

1] In the event of arrest in C.R. No. 285 of 2023 registered at Yeola police station, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

2] The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend Yeola police station, on 8th and 9th January, 2025 between 10 am to 1 pm and, thereafter, as and when directed. 3] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

4] The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

5] It is clarified that these prima facie observations are confined to determine entitlement to pre-arrest bail only. Application disposed.

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.) ...4