Pradip Hiraman Salavi vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody for one and a half years and had no criminal antecedents. It observed that co-accused, who had allegedly received cash amounts or were involved in similar transactions, had been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The Court specifically referred to the bail orders of co-accused Nilesh Ramchandra Jadyar, Jitendra Kumar Singh, and Atul Kiri, highlighting that in their cases, the charge-sheet had been filed, indicating the completion of investigation, and there was nothing on record to suggest they were habitual offenders. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that further detention of the applicant was not warranted. The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. He was also directed to report to the Nalasopara Police Station once every three months on the first Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. until further orders. Provisional cash bail for a period of 8 weeks in lieu of sureties was also permitted.

Facts

The applicant, Mr. Pradip Hiraman Salavi, was arrested on December 3, 2019, in connection with FIR No. I-222 of 2019 registered at Nalasopara Police Station. The FIR was filed for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(3), and (4) of the GST Act. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused, committed fraud by misusing documents to open a false bank account in the name of "Icon Industries" and claiming GST, thereby defrauding the government of Rs. 2,86,80,562/-. The applicant sought bail after being in custody for approximately one and a half years, noting that co-accused involved in similar transactions had been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail considering the period of custody and the bail granted to co-accused, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the GST Act? The applicant argued that he has been in custody for a significant period (one and a half years) and that co-accused, who were involved in the transfer and encashment of the same amount, have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The applicant also stated that he has no other criminal antecedents. The respondent (State) contended that the applicant played a vital role in the transaction by using fake documents, conspiring with co-accused, and facilitating the opening of a false bank account, leading to a loss to the government. The respondent highlighted the alleged fraud amount of Rs. 2,86,80,532/-.