Pankaj Sheshrao Chavan vs. The State Of Maharashtra
Original PDF →Facts
The applicant, Pankaj Sheshrao Chavan, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The FIR alleged that the applicant and others operated a '30-30 investment scheme' in Bidkin town, inducing investors with promises of handsome returns. The informant invested Rs. 15,00,000/- in total, including Rs. 6,00,000/- through RTGS in the applicant's company, PS Enterprises and Multi Services, and Rs. 9,00,000/- paid in cash. The applicant allegedly handed over the cash amount to the head of the scheme. Despite assurances, no returns were paid. The applicant's anticipatory bail application was rejected after the charge sheet was filed, leading to the present application.
Held
The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on several factors presented by the prosecution. Firstly, the applicant was identified as a partner in the '30-30 scheme' and played an active role, as evidenced by bank transactions and his involvement with co-accused. The prosecution presented evidence of substantial financial dealings, with Rs. 28,36,35,665.35/- deposited in the applicant's account and a total of Rs. 68,12,49,000/- deposited by 126 depositors across various accused. Secondly, the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation after being granted interim protection, not attending the police station when summoned. Thirdly, the Court found that the applicant's custody was necessary for effective investigation, specifically to seize records of his unregistered company, verify other bank accounts, and identify movable and immovable properties, which is crucial given the applicability of the MPID Act. The Court rejected the applicant's request for continuation of interim protection.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the gravity of the offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 3 of the MPID Act, and the stage of investigation? The petitioner argued that his accounts and documents were seized, and his presence was not necessary for verification. He relied on *Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.* for the proposition that interrogation can occur while on interim anticipatory bail, and *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* for the argument that custody is not necessary given the maximum punishment for the offences. The respondent (State) contended that the applicant was a partner in the scheme, which defrauded people of crores. They highlighted that the applicant's company, PS Enterprises and Multi Services, was unregistered, lacked GST registration and an office address. Call detail reports showed constant contact with co-accused, and the applicant's bank account showed transactions of Rs. 28 Crore with a co-accused. The respondent also argued that the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation after being granted interim protection and that his custody was necessary to seize records, verify other bank accounts, and identify movable/immovable properties under the MPID Act.
Sections Cited
Section 420, Section 406, Section 34, Section 3, Section 438, Section 27, Section 299
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER :
The applicant apprehends arrest in Crime No. 26/2022, registered with Bidkin Police Station, for offences punishable under sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. 2. First Information Report is lodged by Daulat Rathod against (1) Krushna Eknath Rathod, (2) Pankaj Sheshrao Chavan and (3) Santosh alias Sachin Namdev Rathod, alleging that since last few years a scheme namely, 30-30 investment scheme was being operated in Bidkin town and adjoining area. In the said scheme he invested through his relative Krushna Rathod Bhagyawant Punde
{2} 6-ABA-435-2022+ (Accused No. 1). He was given assurance that handsome returns will be given to him on the said amount. Accordingly, from time to time he invested amounts in the said 30-30 scheme, in the account of Krushna Enterprises, owned by Accused No. 1- Krushna Rathod. Informant also invested Rs. 6,00,000/- by way of RTGS in the account of PS Enterprises and Multi Services, owned by the applicant, on 06.05.2021. Rupees 9,00,000/- was paid to the applicant at the house of informant which the applicant handed over to head of 30-30 scheme namely Santosh alias Sachin Rathod. Total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was invested by informant, in return he was to get Rs. 50,000/- per month. However, no amount as assured was paid to informant. When the informant contacted Krushna Rathod and applicant, they told him that head of 30-30 scheme i.e. Santosh alias Sachin Rathod is not ready to return the amount of investors and therefore, informant should not ask them money.
After registration of crime investigation was conducted and charge sheet is filed against six accused persons, including present applicant, being Accused No.
Anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant after filing of charge sheet is rejected. Hence, the present application. Bhagyawant Punde
{3} 6-ABA-435-2022+
Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. Perused the investigation papers and charge sheet.
Learned advocate for the applicant strenuously submits that the applicant’s accounts statement and other charge sheet is filed applicant’s custody is not necessary.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application contending that it is revealed during the investigation that there were six partners in 30-30 scheme and Bhagyawant Punde
{4} 6-ABA-435-2022+ the applicant is one of them. Poor people were duped by racket of the applicant and other partners for crores of rupees. They were induced to invest in 30-30 scheme with a false assurance of handsome returns. The applicant has opened a company by name PS Enterprises and Multi Services, which is not registered. There is no GST registration of the said company, so also there is no office address. Call Details Report shows that the applicant was in constant contact with Accused No. 1 as well as other partners. ICICI bank account statement of the applicant shows that applicant has done transactions of Rs. 28 Crore with Accused No.
The applicant has attended meeting arranged by Accused No. 1 in J.W. Marriott Hotel, at Kolkata.
After grant of interim protection, investigation officer went to the residence of the applicant and informed the inmates to send the applicant for interrogation, but the applicant has not attended the police station and has not co-operated in the investigation. Further submission is that the custody of the applicant is necessary to seize record in respect of PS Enterprises and Multi Services and to verify and ascertain as to whether applicant has other accounts in different banks. Since offence is registered under MPID Act, movable and immovable Bhagyawant Punde
{5} 6-ABA-435-2022+ properties of the applicant are required to be identified. He therefore, submits that the applicant does not deserve discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
It appears from the record that arrested accused Sachin alias Santosh Namdev Rathod has deceived agriculturists and middle class depositors for crores of rupees in collusion with his partners including the applicant. From bank transactions between accused Sachin Rathod and present applicant and other partners it was found that total 126 depositors have deposited the amounts and statements of 35 witnesses/depositors are recorded, who had deposited total amount of Rs. 68,12,49,000-/. in the account of accused Sachin Rathod or applicant or accused Krushna Rathod, Shakil Khan, Suryakant Rathod and Sushil Yadav. Total amount of Rs. 28,36,35,665.35/- is deposited in the account of present applicant. Accused persons in the present crime have lured agriculturists and middle class depositors to invest in their 30-30 scheme on false assurance of giving 30% return on the invested amount. Deposits in the account of applicant and withdrawal and transactions between applicant and accused Sachin Rathod prima facie, fortifies the prosecution case that applicant was Bhagyawant Punde
{6} 6-ABA-435-2022+ partner in 30-30 scheme and he has played active role in the said scheme.
After grant of interim protection though investigation officer by going to the residence of the applicant informed that applicant’s presence is necessary for investigation, applicant has failed to attend the police station and did not co-operate in the investigation.
Though charge sheet is filed in the present case, applicant is shown as absconding accused and charge sheet is filed against the applicant under section 299 of Cr.P.C. Thus, for effective investigation custody of the applicant is necessary.
There is substance in the contention of the prosecution that to seize record of PS Enterprises and Multi Services and to verify whether applicant has other accounts in different banks, applicant’s custody is necessary. Since provisions of MPID Act are made applicable to the present crime, other movable and immovable properties of the applicant are required to be identified. For that purpose also custody of the applicant is necessary. Bhagyawant Punde
{7} 6-ABA-435-2022+
For the aforestated reasons, applicant is not entitled for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The application is therefore rejected.
At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant requests for continuation of interim protection granted in favour applicant. For the reasons stated in the order, request is rejected.
[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] Bhagyawant Punde
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.