Judgment 395 revn28.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2025 State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Seloo, district Wardha. ….. Applicant. :: V E R S U S :: Shri Rajeev s/o Shri Ravikumar Jaiswal, aged 54 years, occupation : business, r/o “Shri-Kunj”, Gandhi Chowk, Pulgaon, tahsil : Deoli, district Wardha. ….. Non-applicant. Shri V.A.Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant/State. Shri Prafulla Jasutkar, Counsel for the Non-applicant. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. CLOSED ON : 02/04/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 23/04/2025 JUDGMENT 1. The present revision application is filed by the State challenging order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Misc.Criminal Application No.54/2024 whereby the .....2/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 2 application filed for relaxing condition imposed on the non-applicant while releasing him on bail was allowed by defreezing all accounts of various banks of the non- applicant. 2. The non-applicant was arraigned as an accused in connection with Crime No.545/2024 registered with the non-applicant/police station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the MPID Act) read with 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on 25.6.2024, complainant Arun Pohane has lodged report against the office bearers of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank, Branch .....3/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 3 Seloo that he has invested the huge amount in the said bank for different period in a fixed deposit. He has deposited total amount of Rs.24,97,420/-. The Fixed Deposit Certificates were issued. When he approached the bank to withdraw the said amount, he was not permitted to withdraw the amount on pretext that due to Audit, withdrawals have been stopped. Thereafter, he visited time and again, but he could not withdraw the amount as he was restrained from withdrawing the same. Subsequently, he came to know that several customers of the bank, who deposited the amount in fixed deposits, have not received the amounts. Therefore, he approached the police station and lodged the report. During investigation, it revealed that one of co-accused Sharad Kamble is involved in the misappropriation of the amount and he purchased the properties from the non-applicant by paying him earnest amount of Rs.25.00 lacs by RTGS .....4/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 4 and cash of Rs.50.00 lacs to the non-applicant as earnest amount. The said amount of Rs.25.00 lacs was transferred from the account of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank. The co-accused has purchased various properties from the non-applicant allegedly by using the crime proceeds. Therefore, the offence was registered against the co-accused. During investigation, it revealed to the investigating officer that the non-applicant has sold out the properties to the co-accused by obtaining the consideration amount which was paid to him through the account of said Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank. The non- applicant was called for the interrogation. He apprehended the arrest and, therefore, he approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the application and released the non-applicant on anticipatory bail on condition that the investigating officer shall freeze all bank accounts of various banks of the non- .....5/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 5 applicant, till further order and the non-applicant was directed to furnish details of the bank accounts within two days. Subsequent to the passing of the said order, the non-applicant filed an application for relaxing the condition and learned Sessions Judge relaxed the condition and thereby defreezed the bank accounts. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present revision is preferred by the State on the ground that during investigation, it revealed that co-accused Sharad Kamble defrauded and conspired against 27383 depositors. It further revealed that amount of Rs.3,30,00,000/- was paid by the main accused to the present non-applicant towards various transactions conducted at various places. Learned Sessions Judge has not considered the fact that the amount of Rs.25.00 lacs was transferred from the bank account of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank. The amount involved is a public money. Due .....6/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 6 to the defreezing of the bank accounts, prejudice is caused to the State and, therefore, the order passed by learned Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A.Thakare for the applicant/State and learned counsel Shri Prafulla Jasutkar for the non-applicant and perused the investigation papers. 6. During investigation, various documents are seized by the investigation officer including various sale deeds and agreement to sale executed in favour of co-accused Sharad Kamble. The sale deed and agreement to sale executed in favour of the co-accused by the non-applicant show that the non-applicant has received earned amount of Rs.25.00 lacs from co-accused Sharad Kamble. The another agreement to sale in respect of gat No.43 of plot .....7/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 7 No.2 is also between the present non-applicant and the co-accused. The agreement to sale executed between the non-applicant and the co-accused shows that on various occasions some amounts are transferred from account of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank to the account of the non- applicant. The account statements of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank shows that on 20.9.2022 amount of Rs.25 lacs was transferred by way of RTGS in the account of the non-applicant. The bank account statements of the non- applicant also show that he received amount of Rs.25.00 lacs against the transaction entered into by the co-accused to purchase Satyam Bar and Restaurant. 7. Thus, the fact shows that the non-applicant has received amount of Rs.25.00 lacs from the account of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank. .....8/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 8 8. Thus, transfer of the amount in the account of the non-applicant allegedly from the bank account is substantiated by the statements as well as the account statements. 9. Thus, from the document on record it reveals that amount of Rs.25.00 lacs was transferred in the account of the non-applicant from the account of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank. Total amount of Rs.3,05,00,000/- was transferred in the account of the non-applicant against the various transactions. The crime is registered against other co-accused alleging that he misappropriated the amounts and by misappropriating the said amounts, purchased various properties. Though it was submitted that the non- applicant has nothing to do with the allegation levelled against the co-accused and he is not involved in the said crime, the evidence shows that the non-applicant has .....9/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 9 received amount of Rs.30 lacs from bank accounts maintained in the name of said bank. 10. Thus, though involvement of the non-applicant is not only in the misappropriation but also the investigation papers show that crime proceeds are transferred in the account of the non-applicant. 11. Thus, involvement of the non-applicant in receipt of the money through the bank accounts is prima facie apparent. 12. Thus, the amounts are received by the non- applicant in his account which is crime proceed and, therefore, the account of the non-applicant was frozen. While defreezing the said accounts, the trial court had not considered these aspects. 13. It is pertinent to note that the entire amount involved in the present crime is a public money invested .....10/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 10 by the various persons and, therefore, blankly allowing the non-applicant to operate the said accounts definitely would cause prejudice to the prosecution. 14. Considering the documentary evidence, that amount of approximately Rs.30 lacs is deposited in the account of the non-applicant from the bank accounts maintained in the name of Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank, the investigation though completed, trial is yet to be commenced. 15. In this view of the matter, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (1) The revision is allowed partly. (2) The order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Misc.Criminal Application No.54/2024 is modified. .....11/- Judgment 395 revn28.25 11 (3) The condition of defreezing bank account is maintained with a modification that the non-applicant shall keep amount Rs.1.00 crore in the said account and shall not withdraw the same. (4) The non-applicant is permitted to operate the bank account by maintaining amount of Rs.1.00 crore in his bank account. Revision stands disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !! ...../-