Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Jachak @ Dnyaneshwar Vittal Jachak V. The Union of India through CBI

A.B.A./496/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Jachak, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with a financial fraud case under various sections of the IPC and the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The case was initially registered by the Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. and later taken over by the CBI. The allegations centered on the misappropriation of deposits collected by M/s Sai Prasad Properties Limited, where Jachak was a director. The prosecution argued that the company operated in violation of the RBI Act by not being registered as an NBFC and engaged in fraudulent activities. Jachak's defense contended that he was merely an employee and not involved in the alleged offenses, highlighting his cooperation with the investigation and the lack of need for custodial interrogation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801287 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, RBI Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; CHANDANA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHNU SHARMA; AVISHEK CHANDRA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; CBI; Company; Custodial interrogation; Deposits; Director; Fraud; Violation; Unpaid
• Section: 6; 5; 4; 468; 409; 420; 120B; 406; 467; 419

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 496 of 2023 Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Jachak @ Dnyaneshwar Vittal Jachak . .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The Union of India through CBI .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. SGI Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI …... 05/ 08.05.2023. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner above-named has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Case No.RC- 29(S)/2017-EOW-R registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420 IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits Y Money Circulation Shemes (Banning ) Act, 1978. Heard the parties. FIR No.365 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015 of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S., District- Ranchi was registered against Rahul Munda & 22 others of M/s Sai Prasad Group of Companies and later the investigation was taken over by the CBI in pursuance to the direction passed by this Court in pursuance of the direction passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No.642 of 2016 and accordingly, Case No.RC-29(S)/2017-EOW-R was registered. The prosecution case in brief is that M/s Sai Prasad Properties Limited was incorporated on 12.06.2008 and the Directors at the time of alleged incident, Balasaheb Keshavrao Bhapkar and Vandana Balasaheb Bhapkar as well as Eugenio Agnelocassino Nelson De Souza were the Directors of the Company. It is alleged that the company was dealing in sale and marketing of consumable products. The Directors of the Company collected deposits to the tune of Rs.1,91,28,390/- through local agents and Branch, Incharge, Ranchi as well as by other officers of the Jharkhand under the scheme of issuance of Debenture certificates which remained unpaid to the investors in complete violation of the provisions of Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The maturity amount was not repaid. The bank accounts were operated by Balasaheb Keshavrao Bhapkar who was the authorized signatory of all those Bank accounts in which deposits were received. The name of the petitioner has come up as one of the Directors of the company. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was an employee of the said company and was not involved in the alleged offence. It is submitted that Rs.80,000/- has been shown as monthly salary of the petitioner and the amount she had taken Rs.4,60,000/- which was returned by deduction from the salary with EMI of Rs.13,500/- per month. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner and further he has cooperated with the investigating agency. Learned ASGI for the CBI has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that this petitioner was the Director and out of the total deposits received in the Company account, Rs.4,60,000/-was transferred in his account also. It is submitted that the company business was being carried out in gross violation to the provisions of the RBI Act as it was not registered as NBFC with RBI. Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed above that no overt act has been attributed to this petitioner except that he was the Director of the company and after investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below, and subject to the condition that one of the bailor(s) must be Income Tax Payee as well as subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ "