Sanjay Bhaskar Vaidya vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court granted bail to both applicants. The Court acknowledged that the applicants had been in custody since 23/06/2019 and that the investigation was complete, rendering their continued custody for investigative purposes unnecessary. It was noted that the applicants had no criminal antecedents. The Court observed that while the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was primarily bank statements and documentary evidence, no money was recovered from either applicant, suggesting the main accused, Hemant Vitlani, had taken the money. The Court found some substance in the applicants' submission that as employees working under Vitlani, they were bound to follow his instructions and might have believed the temporary deposit in a personal account was due to GST issues. While not fully accepting this contention at this stage, the Court considered it a matter for trial. The Court also noted the professional compulsion faced by the applicants, who risked losing their jobs if they did not follow instructions. The fact that the main accused, Hemant Vitlani, was still absconding was also a significant factor. Therefore, considering the applicants' prolonged custody, lack of recovery, and the absconding status of the main accused, the Court was inclined to grant bail sympathetically. The applicants were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing PR bonds and sureties, attending court on trial dates, and depositing their passports.

Facts

Two criminal bail applications were filed by Sanjay Bhaskar Vaidya and Ashish Kantibhai Nimavat, arising from the same FIR registered under sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 477(A) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by an employee of Rajasthan Aushadhalaya Pvt. Ltd., alleging misappropriation of funds by Hemant Vitlani, the co-ordination officer for Gujarat, and his associates, including the applicants. The company suffered a loss of Rs. 27,43,400/- due to the alleged modus operandi involving misappropriation of amounts collected from doctors and sale of medicines in the market. The applicants were arrested on 23/06/2019, and the charge-sheet has been filed, indicating a total loss of Rs. 67,04,009/-. The applicants claim to be mere employees who followed instructions due to professional compulsion and GST issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants, as employees, can be held liable for the alleged misappropriation committed by their superior, Hemant Vitlani, particularly when they claim to have acted under compulsion and in good faith due to purported GST issues (Question of mixed law and fact). 2. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail, considering their prolonged custody since 23/06/2019, the completion of investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that no recovery was made from them, while the main accused remains absconding (Question of law). Contentions of the Applicants: The applicants argued that they were mere employees and the main offence was committed by Hemant Vitlani. They submitted that they had no option but to follow Vitlani's orders, believing his explanation about depositing amounts in his account due to GST issues. Ashish Nimavat, having joined only six months prior to the FIR, could not be part of a conspiracy. They also highlighted the absence of recovery from them as evidence of their innocence. Contentions of the State: The State argued that the offence could not have occurred without the active participation of both applicants. They contended that documentary evidence and bank statements clearly showed the applicants collecting amounts and depositing them into personal accounts instead of the company's account, leading to misappropriation. They opposed the grant of bail.