Full Judgment Text
2018:BHC-AS:11148
Nalawade A.S .
1 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1607 OF 2015
Navnit K. Mehta,
Age 74 years, Occ. Business,
Having his address at 80, Solitiare,
S.V. Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai 400054. ...Petitioner.
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra,
(Through the Public Prosecutor)
2. Deepak Kantilal Doshi,
Adult, Occ. Chartered Accountant,
C/o. Rajendra and Company,
1311, Dalalmal Towers,
211, Nariman Point,
Mumbai400020. ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1608 OF 2015
Shobhit Rajan,
Age 51 years, Occ. Business,
Having his address Solitiare
80, S.V .Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai 400054. ….Petitioner.
vs.
1. Deepak Kantilal Doshi,
Adult, occ. Chartered Accountant,
C/o. Rajendra and Company,
1311, Dalalmal Towers,
211, Nariman Point,
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
2 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
Mumbai400020.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through the Economic Offences Wing,
Unit III, Mumbai. ….Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2015
Shobhit Rajan,
Age 50 years, Occ. Businesss,
Having his address Solitiare
80, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai 400054. ….Applicant.
Vs.
1. Deepak Kantilal Doshi,
Adult, Occ. Chartered Accountant,
C/o.Rajendra and Company,
1311, Dalalmal Towers,
211, Nariman Point,
Mumbai400021.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Economic Offences Wing,
Unit III, Mumbai. ….Respondents.
Mr. Vibhav Krishna with Mr. Devang Lakhatia, Mr. Tahir Prandi i/by
Juris Consillis for the Applicant.
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundergi with Ms. Rhia Mehta i/by Vashi & Vashi
Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.S.Hulke, APP. for the State.
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : Reserved on 16.2.2018
Pronounced on 13.4.2018
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
3 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Order dated 9.2.2015 passed in ABA NO. 304/2015 by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, granting
prearrest bail to the respondent Deepak K. Doshi is under challenge
in all the above petitions.
2. The petitioner, Mr. Navnit K. Mehta in W.P. No.1607/2015 is
the original complainant in CC No.99/SW/2014 filed against
respondent No.2 Deepak K. Doshi (hereinafter referred to as
“Respondent” for brevity) and five other accused persons for an
offence punishable under Sections 109, 406, 418, 420, 464, 465,
467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) read with 34 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 66D, 72A, 84G and 85 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. The learned Metropolitan
th
Magistrate, 49 Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai was pleased to issue an
Order of 'process' dated 6.5.2014 against the accused persons
therein including the Respondent. By further Order dated 13.5.2014,
the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons against the
Respondent. That, Respondent thereafter appeared before the
concerned Magistrate and filed an application under Section 437 of
the Cr.P.C. for bail which was allowed by the concerned Court by its
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
4 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
order dated 19.7.2014.
3. The Respondent thereafter filed applications for exemption
from attending the Trial Court on various dates on the ground that
he had complied with the bail formalities and his presence on each
and every occasion is not necessary. The learned Magistrate has
allowed the said applications.
4. Mr. Shobhit J. Rajan is the petitioner in W. P. No.1608 of 2015
filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India and the
applicant in Application No. 144 of 2015 filed under Section 439(2)
of the Cr.P.C., is the original complainant in CC No.234/SW/2013
th
filed before the 9 Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mumbai on
16.8.2013 and for offence punishable under Section 109, 114, 384,
406, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) read with Section
34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the Respondent
and other seven accused persons. In the said complaint, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra was pleased to pass an Order
dated 16.8.2013, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., directing
investigation into the said complaint by Khar Police Station,
Mumbai. On the basis of the said Order dated 16.8.2013, the Khar
Police Station registered MECR No.1/2013 dated 28.8.2013 . That,
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
5 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
on 15.9.2013 the investigation of said MECR No.1/2013 was
transferred from Khar Police Station to Economic Offences Wing,
Crime Branch, Unit3, Mumbai and the said Investigating Agency
renumbered the said crime as MECR No.11/2013. The Economic
Offences Wing issued a summons to the Respondent for appearing
before it on 25.7.2014. The Respondent replied the said summons
by a letter of response dated 4.8.2014 and also gave a letter cum
statement dated 10.1.2015 to the Investigating Agency. That, EOW,
Mumbai further issued a summons to the Respondent on 25.7.2014.
5. The facts narrated in the herein above in paragraphs Nos.2 to
4 are the admitted facts on record.
6. In the premise, on 5.2.2015 the applicant filed an application
for prearrest bail bearing ABA No.304/2015 before the Sessions
Court at Mumbai. In the said application, the applicant has
mentioned CC No.99/SW/2014 pending on the file of the learned
st
Metropolitan Magistrate, 31 Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, in the cause
title and in the prayer clause. The applicant has also stated that, the
said complaint was being concurrently investigated by the Economic
Offences Wing, Unit No.3, CB, CID, Mumbai.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai by the
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
6 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
impugned Order dated 9.2.2015 was pleased to allow the said
application No.304 of 2015 and granted prearrest bail to the
Respondent on certain conditions. In the operative part of the
impugned Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
categorically observed that the Respondent was being granted pre
arrest bail in MECR No.11/2013 and 1/2013 registered with
Economic Offence Wing Unit No.3, CB CID Mumbai and Khar Police
Station Mumbai respectively.
8. The learned counsel Mr. Vaibhav Krishna, while arguing on
behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1607/2015 submitted
that, the application of the Respondent for prearrest bail was
specifically in CC No.99/SW/2014 and once the Respondent is
granted bail by the Magistrate and the Respondent compiles with
the necessary formalities therein, there was no occasion for the
Respondent to file an application for prearrest bail before the
Sessions Court. He submitted that, in the said CC No.99/SW/2014
the trial Court has already taken cognizance and in response to the
process issued therein the Respondent had appeared before the
Court and has complied with the formalities for bail and therefore,
the application preferred by the Respondent before the Court of
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
7 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
Sessions for prearrest bail was badinlaw and the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have entertained the same.
He therefore, submitted that, the impugned order may be quashed
and set aside.
9. At this stage, it is to be noted here that, it is the settled
position of law that once the accused is released on regular bail after
taking cognizance of the offence, there is no question of grant of pre
arrest bail, inter alia filling an application for prearrest bail by the
accused. In the present case, though the applicant and/or his
Advocate in the cause title and prayer clause of the application ABA
No.304/2015 has mentioned CC No.99/SW/2014 as the case in
which he is seeking prearrest bail, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge while allowing the application has categorically and
specifically granted him prearrest bail in MECR No.11/2013
registered with Economic Offences Wing Unit No.3, CB CID, Mumbai
and in MECR NO.1/2013 with Khar Police Station, Mumbai. As
noted earlier, the MECR No.1/2013 was originally registered with
Khar Police Station, was transferred for further investigation to the
Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Unit No.3, Mumbai and the
said Investigating Agency has renumbered it as MECR No.11/2013.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
8 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
It is thus clear that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
granted prearrest bail to the Respondent in MECR No.11/2013
which was being investigated by Economic Offences Wing, Unit 3,
CB CID, Mumbai.
10. After perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view
that there is every reason to believe, infer and conclude that the
impugned order dated 9.2.2015 is passed in MECR No.11/2013
which was being investigated by Economic Offence Wing, Unit No.3,
CB CID, Mumbai, originally registered with Khar Police Station as
MECR No.1/2013 arising out of CC No.234/SW/2013 filed by Mr.
Shobhit Rajan and the mentioning of CC No.99/SW/2014 in the
cause title and prayer clause of ABA No.304/2015 by the
Respondent and/or his Advocate was a sheer mistake occurred due
to inadvertence.
I therefore find no merits in Writ Petition No.1607/2017 and
the same is accordingly rejected with the aforesaid clarification.
11. Mr. Vaibhav Krishna while arguing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.1608/2015 and the applicant in Criminal Application
No.144/2015 submitted that the Respondent had filed the said
Application being ABA No.304/2015 specifically in CC
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
9 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
No.99/SW/2014 without mentioning the Complaint Case
No.234/SW/2013 filed by Shri. Shobhit Rajan and therefore, the
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, granting
prearrest bail to the Respondent in MECR No.11/2013 suffers from
perversity, non application of mind, predetermination and contrary
to the law. He submitted that the Investigating Officer while filing
report in the said application i.e. ABA No.304/2015 had filed wrong
report pertaining to the MECR No.11/2013 without verifying the
reliefs prayed in the said ABA No.304/2015. He further submitted
that the learned Trial Judge as such unreasonably, equate and
compared and relied upon two different complaints bearing
No.11/2013 which was being investigated by the Economic offience
Wing, Mumbai in a complaint bearing CC No.234/SW/2013 filed by
the Petitioner Shri. Shobhit Rajan with the complaint bearing CC
No.99/SW/2014 filed by the complainant Shri. Navnit Mehta, which
st
was pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 31 Court at
Vikhroli. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has granted anticipatory bail in MECR No.11/2013 on the
basis of the facts in CC No.99/SW/2014 filed by the complainant
Shri. Navnit Mehta pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate,
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
10 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
st
31 Court at Vikhroli. He therefore, submitted that the impugned
order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Greater Mumbai therefore deserves to be quashed and set
aside on merits. He submitted that Writ Petition No.1608/2015
therefore, deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the
impugned Order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in ABA No.304/2015.
12. Mr. Mundergi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent submitted that there is no substance in the contentions
of the petitioner. That, there was no confusion in the pleadings of
the Respondent in the anticipatory bail application except
mentioning an incorrect case number in the cause title and in the
prayer clause. He submitted that the facts narrated by way of
pleadings in the said application were pertaining to MECR
No.11/2013. He submitted that it is the reason that the petitioner
Shri. Shobhit Rajan therefore, intervened in the said application
being an interested person in the said proceedings and in Para No.1
of his intervention application has clearly mentioned that, he is the
original complainant in MECR No.11/2013 which was being
investigated by Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. He submitted
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
11 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
that the cause title of the impugned Order will clearly denote the
presence of the petitioner in the proceedings and he was thereafter
heard at length by the trial Court. He submitted that the Trial Court
has not committed error while passing the impugned Order in
MECR No.11/2013 as ABA NO.304/2015 was in fact filed in MECR
No.11/2013. He submitted that the Writ Petition No.1608/2015 and
Criminal Application No.144/2015 are misconceived and are filed
only with a view to harass the Respondent and nothing else.
13. After perusing the record minutely, this Court is of the view
that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai while
passing the impugned Order has taken into consideration the facts
mentioned in the Complaint No.234/SW/2013 and the record of the
investigation pertaining to MECR No.11/2013. The trial Court has
made a reference of the complaint No.99/SW/2014 only with a view
to evaluate the facts in both the complainants. It is to be noted here
that, CC No.99/SW/2014 filed by Shri. Navnit Mehta and CC
No.234/SW/2013 filed by Shobhit Rajan proceeds on the same set of
facts with same set of accused persons and therefore, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Para 15 of the impugned Order has
observed that, with similar allegations in the previous complaint i.e.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
12 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
filed by Shri. Navnit Mehta the Respondent was arrested and was
subsequently released on bail and therefore, for the same reasons
his custodial interrogation in MECR No.11/2013 is not necessary. I
concur with the finding recorded by the trial Court. It is indubitably
clear from the language of the impugned order that the same is
passed in MECR No.11/2013 by the Trial Court, granting prearrest
bail to the Respondent on merits. Even otherwise also the material
on record clearly indicates that, the Respondent deserves to be
released on pre arrest bail in the complaint filed by petitioner Mr.
Shobhit Rajan.
I find no substance in the contentions of the petitioner Shri.
Shobhit Rajan in the petition and therefore, the Writ Petition
No.1608/1015 is accordingly rejected.
14. As noted earlier, the Criminal Application No.144/2015 is filed
challenging the same impugned Order dated 9.2.2015 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai and in view of
the Order passed in Writ Petition No.1608/2015, no separate order
is necessary in Criminal Application No.144/2015 and the same is
accordingly rejected.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
1 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1607 OF 2015
Navnit K. Mehta,
Age 74 years, Occ. Business,
Having his address at 80, Solitiare,
S.V. Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai 400054. ...Petitioner.
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra,
(Through the Public Prosecutor)
2. Deepak Kantilal Doshi,
Adult, Occ. Chartered Accountant,
C/o. Rajendra and Company,
1311, Dalalmal Towers,
211, Nariman Point,
Mumbai400020. ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1608 OF 2015
Shobhit Rajan,
Age 51 years, Occ. Business,
Having his address Solitiare
80, S.V .Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai 400054. ….Petitioner.
vs.
1. Deepak Kantilal Doshi,
Adult, occ. Chartered Accountant,
C/o. Rajendra and Company,
1311, Dalalmal Towers,
211, Nariman Point,
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
2 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
Mumbai400020.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through the Economic Offences Wing,
Unit III, Mumbai. ….Respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2015
Shobhit Rajan,
Age 50 years, Occ. Businesss,
Having his address Solitiare
80, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai 400054. ….Applicant.
Vs.
1. Deepak Kantilal Doshi,
Adult, Occ. Chartered Accountant,
C/o.Rajendra and Company,
1311, Dalalmal Towers,
211, Nariman Point,
Mumbai400021.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Economic Offences Wing,
Unit III, Mumbai. ….Respondents.
Mr. Vibhav Krishna with Mr. Devang Lakhatia, Mr. Tahir Prandi i/by
Juris Consillis for the Applicant.
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundergi with Ms. Rhia Mehta i/by Vashi & Vashi
Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.S.Hulke, APP. for the State.
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : Reserved on 16.2.2018
Pronounced on 13.4.2018
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
3 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Order dated 9.2.2015 passed in ABA NO. 304/2015 by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, granting
prearrest bail to the respondent Deepak K. Doshi is under challenge
in all the above petitions.
2. The petitioner, Mr. Navnit K. Mehta in W.P. No.1607/2015 is
the original complainant in CC No.99/SW/2014 filed against
respondent No.2 Deepak K. Doshi (hereinafter referred to as
“Respondent” for brevity) and five other accused persons for an
offence punishable under Sections 109, 406, 418, 420, 464, 465,
467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) read with 34 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 66D, 72A, 84G and 85 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. The learned Metropolitan
th
Magistrate, 49 Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai was pleased to issue an
Order of 'process' dated 6.5.2014 against the accused persons
therein including the Respondent. By further Order dated 13.5.2014,
the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons against the
Respondent. That, Respondent thereafter appeared before the
concerned Magistrate and filed an application under Section 437 of
the Cr.P.C. for bail which was allowed by the concerned Court by its
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
4 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
order dated 19.7.2014.
3. The Respondent thereafter filed applications for exemption
from attending the Trial Court on various dates on the ground that
he had complied with the bail formalities and his presence on each
and every occasion is not necessary. The learned Magistrate has
allowed the said applications.
4. Mr. Shobhit J. Rajan is the petitioner in W. P. No.1608 of 2015
filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India and the
applicant in Application No. 144 of 2015 filed under Section 439(2)
of the Cr.P.C., is the original complainant in CC No.234/SW/2013
th
filed before the 9 Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mumbai on
16.8.2013 and for offence punishable under Section 109, 114, 384,
406, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) read with Section
34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the Respondent
and other seven accused persons. In the said complaint, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra was pleased to pass an Order
dated 16.8.2013, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., directing
investigation into the said complaint by Khar Police Station,
Mumbai. On the basis of the said Order dated 16.8.2013, the Khar
Police Station registered MECR No.1/2013 dated 28.8.2013 . That,
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
5 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
on 15.9.2013 the investigation of said MECR No.1/2013 was
transferred from Khar Police Station to Economic Offences Wing,
Crime Branch, Unit3, Mumbai and the said Investigating Agency
renumbered the said crime as MECR No.11/2013. The Economic
Offences Wing issued a summons to the Respondent for appearing
before it on 25.7.2014. The Respondent replied the said summons
by a letter of response dated 4.8.2014 and also gave a letter cum
statement dated 10.1.2015 to the Investigating Agency. That, EOW,
Mumbai further issued a summons to the Respondent on 25.7.2014.
5. The facts narrated in the herein above in paragraphs Nos.2 to
4 are the admitted facts on record.
6. In the premise, on 5.2.2015 the applicant filed an application
for prearrest bail bearing ABA No.304/2015 before the Sessions
Court at Mumbai. In the said application, the applicant has
mentioned CC No.99/SW/2014 pending on the file of the learned
st
Metropolitan Magistrate, 31 Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, in the cause
title and in the prayer clause. The applicant has also stated that, the
said complaint was being concurrently investigated by the Economic
Offences Wing, Unit No.3, CB, CID, Mumbai.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai by the
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
6 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
impugned Order dated 9.2.2015 was pleased to allow the said
application No.304 of 2015 and granted prearrest bail to the
Respondent on certain conditions. In the operative part of the
impugned Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
categorically observed that the Respondent was being granted pre
arrest bail in MECR No.11/2013 and 1/2013 registered with
Economic Offence Wing Unit No.3, CB CID Mumbai and Khar Police
Station Mumbai respectively.
8. The learned counsel Mr. Vaibhav Krishna, while arguing on
behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1607/2015 submitted
that, the application of the Respondent for prearrest bail was
specifically in CC No.99/SW/2014 and once the Respondent is
granted bail by the Magistrate and the Respondent compiles with
the necessary formalities therein, there was no occasion for the
Respondent to file an application for prearrest bail before the
Sessions Court. He submitted that, in the said CC No.99/SW/2014
the trial Court has already taken cognizance and in response to the
process issued therein the Respondent had appeared before the
Court and has complied with the formalities for bail and therefore,
the application preferred by the Respondent before the Court of
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
7 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
Sessions for prearrest bail was badinlaw and the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have entertained the same.
He therefore, submitted that, the impugned order may be quashed
and set aside.
9. At this stage, it is to be noted here that, it is the settled
position of law that once the accused is released on regular bail after
taking cognizance of the offence, there is no question of grant of pre
arrest bail, inter alia filling an application for prearrest bail by the
accused. In the present case, though the applicant and/or his
Advocate in the cause title and prayer clause of the application ABA
No.304/2015 has mentioned CC No.99/SW/2014 as the case in
which he is seeking prearrest bail, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge while allowing the application has categorically and
specifically granted him prearrest bail in MECR No.11/2013
registered with Economic Offences Wing Unit No.3, CB CID, Mumbai
and in MECR NO.1/2013 with Khar Police Station, Mumbai. As
noted earlier, the MECR No.1/2013 was originally registered with
Khar Police Station, was transferred for further investigation to the
Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Unit No.3, Mumbai and the
said Investigating Agency has renumbered it as MECR No.11/2013.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
8 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
It is thus clear that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
granted prearrest bail to the Respondent in MECR No.11/2013
which was being investigated by Economic Offences Wing, Unit 3,
CB CID, Mumbai.
10. After perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view
that there is every reason to believe, infer and conclude that the
impugned order dated 9.2.2015 is passed in MECR No.11/2013
which was being investigated by Economic Offence Wing, Unit No.3,
CB CID, Mumbai, originally registered with Khar Police Station as
MECR No.1/2013 arising out of CC No.234/SW/2013 filed by Mr.
Shobhit Rajan and the mentioning of CC No.99/SW/2014 in the
cause title and prayer clause of ABA No.304/2015 by the
Respondent and/or his Advocate was a sheer mistake occurred due
to inadvertence.
I therefore find no merits in Writ Petition No.1607/2017 and
the same is accordingly rejected with the aforesaid clarification.
11. Mr. Vaibhav Krishna while arguing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.1608/2015 and the applicant in Criminal Application
No.144/2015 submitted that the Respondent had filed the said
Application being ABA No.304/2015 specifically in CC
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
9 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
No.99/SW/2014 without mentioning the Complaint Case
No.234/SW/2013 filed by Shri. Shobhit Rajan and therefore, the
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, granting
prearrest bail to the Respondent in MECR No.11/2013 suffers from
perversity, non application of mind, predetermination and contrary
to the law. He submitted that the Investigating Officer while filing
report in the said application i.e. ABA No.304/2015 had filed wrong
report pertaining to the MECR No.11/2013 without verifying the
reliefs prayed in the said ABA No.304/2015. He further submitted
that the learned Trial Judge as such unreasonably, equate and
compared and relied upon two different complaints bearing
No.11/2013 which was being investigated by the Economic offience
Wing, Mumbai in a complaint bearing CC No.234/SW/2013 filed by
the Petitioner Shri. Shobhit Rajan with the complaint bearing CC
No.99/SW/2014 filed by the complainant Shri. Navnit Mehta, which
st
was pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 31 Court at
Vikhroli. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has granted anticipatory bail in MECR No.11/2013 on the
basis of the facts in CC No.99/SW/2014 filed by the complainant
Shri. Navnit Mehta pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate,
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
10 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
st
31 Court at Vikhroli. He therefore, submitted that the impugned
order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Greater Mumbai therefore deserves to be quashed and set
aside on merits. He submitted that Writ Petition No.1608/2015
therefore, deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the
impugned Order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in ABA No.304/2015.
12. Mr. Mundergi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent submitted that there is no substance in the contentions
of the petitioner. That, there was no confusion in the pleadings of
the Respondent in the anticipatory bail application except
mentioning an incorrect case number in the cause title and in the
prayer clause. He submitted that the facts narrated by way of
pleadings in the said application were pertaining to MECR
No.11/2013. He submitted that it is the reason that the petitioner
Shri. Shobhit Rajan therefore, intervened in the said application
being an interested person in the said proceedings and in Para No.1
of his intervention application has clearly mentioned that, he is the
original complainant in MECR No.11/2013 which was being
investigated by Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. He submitted
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
11 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
that the cause title of the impugned Order will clearly denote the
presence of the petitioner in the proceedings and he was thereafter
heard at length by the trial Court. He submitted that the Trial Court
has not committed error while passing the impugned Order in
MECR No.11/2013 as ABA NO.304/2015 was in fact filed in MECR
No.11/2013. He submitted that the Writ Petition No.1608/2015 and
Criminal Application No.144/2015 are misconceived and are filed
only with a view to harass the Respondent and nothing else.
13. After perusing the record minutely, this Court is of the view
that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai while
passing the impugned Order has taken into consideration the facts
mentioned in the Complaint No.234/SW/2013 and the record of the
investigation pertaining to MECR No.11/2013. The trial Court has
made a reference of the complaint No.99/SW/2014 only with a view
to evaluate the facts in both the complainants. It is to be noted here
that, CC No.99/SW/2014 filed by Shri. Navnit Mehta and CC
No.234/SW/2013 filed by Shobhit Rajan proceeds on the same set of
facts with same set of accused persons and therefore, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Para 15 of the impugned Order has
observed that, with similar allegations in the previous complaint i.e.
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::
Nalawade A.S .
12 /12 WP-1607-15 & ors.
filed by Shri. Navnit Mehta the Respondent was arrested and was
subsequently released on bail and therefore, for the same reasons
his custodial interrogation in MECR No.11/2013 is not necessary. I
concur with the finding recorded by the trial Court. It is indubitably
clear from the language of the impugned order that the same is
passed in MECR No.11/2013 by the Trial Court, granting prearrest
bail to the Respondent on merits. Even otherwise also the material
on record clearly indicates that, the Respondent deserves to be
released on pre arrest bail in the complaint filed by petitioner Mr.
Shobhit Rajan.
I find no substance in the contentions of the petitioner Shri.
Shobhit Rajan in the petition and therefore, the Writ Petition
No.1608/1015 is accordingly rejected.
14. As noted earlier, the Criminal Application No.144/2015 is filed
challenging the same impugned Order dated 9.2.2015 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai and in view of
the Order passed in Writ Petition No.1608/2015, no separate order
is necessary in Criminal Application No.144/2015 and the same is
accordingly rejected.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:44:08 :::