Bail Application No.106/2024.
MHCC020007022024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 421 OF 2023.
Aarif Ajmuddin Patel
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.421/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Anil Kamble for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 30TH JANUARY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Aarif Ajmuddin Patel being
accused in C.R.No.421/2023 registered with Matunga Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.106/2024.
and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as,
“IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “Cr.P.C.”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, since 27.09.2021 until
14.02.2022 accused namely Ali Raza Shaikh, Jay @ Raju Manglani,
Valmik Goler, Vijay Nadar and Vikrant D. Sonawane in connivance
with each other conspired and obtained the faith of the informant
and appraised of the fact that, his liquor license would be transferred
and he would also be sustained with benefits from the APMC Market,
Navi Mumbai. Apart from the same, it was also appraised to the
informant that he would be exonerated from the offence registered
against him. Under this appraisal the applicant alongwith the coaccused received Rs.1,95,68,000/- from the informant and when the
informant asked them for the said amount he was threatened upon
gunpoint. It is pertinent that applicant/accused was shown as Vikrant
S. Sonawane, in whose name the liquor license was registered. It is
alleged that the applicant/accused had forged the PAN card which
was shown to the informant in order to gain his faith. Accordingly,
the offence was registered under Sections ibid. Further, accused Ali
Raza Shaikh and thereafter the applicant/accused was put under
arrest in the present crime.

3.

Ld. Advocate for applicant states that, the applicant is
falsely implicated in the present crime. It is categorically stated that,
there is non compliance of Section 41 A (1) of Cr.P.C, wherein the
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.106/2024.
date of issuance of notice and the date of arrest are one and the
same. The applicant/accused is not the author of the forged
documents. No criminal offence is made out from the substratum of
FIR in the charge-sheet. The case of the informant is document based.
Further, the applicant is neither beneficiary of the amount, nor is it
the case of the prosecution in view of the role attributed to the
applicant. Ingredients of sections 406 or 420 of IPC are not attracted
and they cannot be invoked simultaneously and that money was
never entrusted by the informant to the applicant/accused. Also, that
charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and nothing is to be
recovered at the instance of the applicant/accused. Hence, the Ld.
Advocate for applicant prayed for enlarging the applicant on bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the applicant/accused is assigned with
the role forging of PAN card and that the applicant/accused was
shown as Vikrant Sonawane, in whose name the liquor license stood,
in order to gain the faith and confidence of the informant. Also the
amount received by the applicant/accused in the present crime is yet
to be recovered. The entire commission of crime is under the racket
under operation and therefore, in order to unveil such facts the
applicant/accused is required for the purposes of confrontation. Ld.
Prosecutor further apprehends for abscondance, tampering of
evidence and threatening to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld.
Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.

Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.106/2024.
5.

Ld. Advocate for intervener categorically states that, mere
filing of charge-sheet is no change in circumstance and the said
position is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further
stated the factum of transaction and argued in congruence with that
of the Ld. Prosecutor. He also has relied upon several case laws and
finally urged for rejection of application.

6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant, Ld. Advocate for
intervenor and Ld. APP for the State. Perused the application and
reply.
7.

Upon copious perusal of the case papers, bail application
and the appended documents it is palpably clear that, the
applicant/accused has harped on the aspect non compliance of
Section 41 A (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he
has alleged of issuance of notice and arrest of the accused person
are on the same day. It is pertinent that applicant/accused has not
denied of issuance of notice under Section 41 A (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and on perusal of the said provision there is no
any embargo for such arrest as it is opinion formed by the
investigating officer to that effect and the same has to be tested
upon
the
anvil
of
evidence.

It
is
pertinent
that
the
applicant/accused has not denied for his acquaintance with that of
the co-accused. Investigating officer present has stated for several
other forged PAN card prepared by the applicant/accused which
were revealed during the course of investigation and also has
stated that the applicant/accused has a modus-operandi of using
such forged PAN card in order to screen his identity. This aspect
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.106/2024.

ipso-facto disentitles the applicant/accused from any such relief of
enlargement on bail.
8.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

9.

Ld.

Prosecutor
vehemently
states
that
the
applicant/accused has his modus of changing his identity and thus
there is every possibility that the applicant/ accused might tamper
with the prosecution evidence. Further, recovery is yet to be
effected. Therefore, I do not find this as a fit case for grant of bail
and there is every possibility that, the applicant/accused might
tamper with the prosecution evidence.

In the backdrop of
aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application deserves no
consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.106/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 30.01.2024..

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.02.01
17:32:09 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 30.01.2024.
Transcribed on : 31.01.2024.
HHJ signed on : 01.02.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.106/2024.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
01.02.2024
05.31 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
30.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
01.02.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
01.02.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6