Bombay HC grants bail to man after complainant delayed trial

“The complainant has stalled the proceedings and the prosecution has fallen prey to the sin,” observed the court and proceeded to grant bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and directed Shewale to attend the trial

Mumbai: The Bombay high court (HC) while holding that the prosecution had become victim to the ‘delay tactics’ of the complainant, granted bail to an accused who has been behind bars since 2016 for cheating people by giving them fake appointment letters of government jobs and taking money for the same.

Bombay HC grants bail to man after complainant delayed trial

The court held that though the trial was to get underway, the complainant filed numerous applications, the last being a demand for the appointment of a special prosecutor, which delayed the commencement of the trial. In light of this and the fact that 173 witnesses were to be examined in the trial, the court granted bail.

The single judge bench of justice Sadhana Jadhav while hearing the bail application of Lalit Shewale was informed by advocate Satyavrat Joshi that the alleged offence was committed by his client in 2016 and he has been arrested on the basis of a complaint by Praveen Suryavanshi, a resident of Nashik.

Lalit Shewale along with three others had been accused and booked for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code sections pertaining to conspiring with others for cheating, forgery, misrepresentation, giving false promises among others, and under sections 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short “M.P.I.D.”) and under section 66(C)(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Under the guise of providing confirmed jobs in government departments, Shewale and others had taken money from many applicants and had also provided them with fake appointment letters to make it look genuine and collect huge amounts from the unsuspecting victims. However, after Suryavanshi realised that he had been duped, he lodged a complaint based on which Shewale and his aides were arrested.

While arguing for Shewale, Joshi informed the bench that his client had been in jail for more than five years which was more than the prescribed punishment for some of the offences. He further informed the bench that even before the trial was fixed and commenced the complainant (Suryavanshi ) had delayed it by writing to various authorities seeking transfer of the case from one court to the other and when it was done, he sought an appointment of a special public prosecutor. As a result of this, the trial was delayed and as there were 173 witnesses to be questioned it would take some time hence Shewale should be granted bail.

After hearing the submissions, the bench observed in its order, “As of today, the complainant has insisted upon appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and has protracted the trial by not letting the prosecution proceed and examine witnesses.” The bench further noted that the properties of the applicant were attached and the court was of the opinion that further incarceration of the applicant would amount to punitive detention of the applicant on unwarranted grounds. “The complainant has stalled the proceedings and the prosecution has fallen prey to the sin,” observed the court and proceeded to grant bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and directed Shewale to attend the trial.