1
MHCC020072112024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1173 OF 2024
1) Akash Sukhdev Gade
2) Rushikesh Ramu Chougule
… Applicants/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
… Respondent/State
(Through of Trombay Police Station vide
C.R. No. 180/2024)
Appearance :Mr. Sanjay Rathod, Ld. Advocate for applicants/Accused.
Mr. Sachin Patil, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 13TH MAY, 2024.
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicants/accused
persons under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, for releasing them on regular bail in connection with C.R.
No.180/2024 registered with Trombay police station for the offence
punishable under Sections 397, 387, 323, 504, 506(2) r/w 34 of
I.P.C.

2
2.

The applicants/accused submitted that they have been
falsely implicated in this crime. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R.
There is no grievous injury to the complainant. There is no prima
facie case made out against the accused persons. Both applicants
are permanent residents of Mumbai. Hence applicants/accused
persons prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R.
No.180/2024 registered with Trombay police station.
3.

The investigation officer submitted Say at Exh.2 and
resisted
the
bail
application
on
the
ground
that
both
applicants/accused persons are having criminal antecedents.
Applicants/accused persons committed dacoity and committed
serious offence. If bail is granted to applicants/accused, then they
will
put
pressure
on
complainant
and
witnesses.

Lastly,
investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail application.
4.

Heard
Ld.

Adv.

Mr.

Sanjay
Rathod
for
the
applicant/accused and Ld. APP Sachin Patil for Respondent/State.
5.

Perused contents of application and say filed by
investigating officer. By this application applicant/accused prayed
for grant of regular bail. I have gone through F.I.R. In F.I.R. name of
both applicants/accused are mentioned. In F.I.R. there are specific
allegation against applicants/accused that all the accused persons
came at the construction site of informant at Panjarpol, Chembur
and they demanded amount of Rs.5,000/- to him and assaulted him
by fist blows. Accused Akash Gade assaulted by showing knife to
the complainant forcibly removed cash of Rs.3,000/-. So also there
are allegation against applicant/accused that on 18.04.2024 they
3
again came at the construction site of informant and they assaulted
to the labours of complainant who were working in the
construction site. They also shown knife to the labours and forcibly
took away cement gunny bag. When complainant came there, at
that time, the accused persons gave threat to kill him and
demanded money to him. Thus, the role of applicants/accused are
specifically mentioned in F.I.R. The F.I.R. itself indicates that on two
occasions the accused persons demanded money to the informant
and accused persons by showing the knife to the complainant
removed the cash of Rs.3,000/-. They also shown knife to the
labours and stolen cement gunny bag. Applicants/accused persons
have played active role in committing the said crime. Therefore,
they are not entitled for grant of regular bail.
6.

In
this
case
investigation
is
in
progress.

Let
investigation be completed. If bail is granted to applicants/accused
persons, then work of investigation will be hampered. Therefore,
applicants/accused persons are not entitled for grant of regular
bail.
7.

In this case the offence under Sections 397, 387, 323,
504, 506(2) r/w 34 of I.P.C. is registered against applicants/accused
persons. The offence under Sections 397 of I.P.C. is punishable with
imprisonment for seven years. Thus it is clear that alleged offence is
very serious in nature. If bail is granted to applicants/accused in
such serious case, then bad message will spread in the society. The
possibility cannot be ruled out that applicants/accused may again
commit similar type of offence. Therefore it is not proper to enlarge
the applicants/accused persons on bail.

4
8.

From the say of investigating officer it is seen that both
the applicants are having criminal antecedents. It is seen from the
reply of investigating officer that three offences are registered
against accused No.1. So also four offences are registered against
accused No.2. Thus it is clear that both the applicants are having
criminal antecedents. If bail is granted to these accused persons
then they will again commit similar type of offence. They may also
tamper the witnesses. Therefore, it is not proper to enlarge the
applicants/accused persons on bail.
9.

Considering the nature of offence and role played by
the applicants/accused persons in the crime I am of the view that as
investigation is in progress, it is not proper to grant bail to the
applicants/accused persons. Therefore, the bail application is liable
to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.1173 of 2024 stands rejected.

2.

Order accordingly.
ATUL
SHANKARRAO
SALGAR
Date : 13.05.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
HHJ signed on
Digitally signed
by ATUL
SHANKARRAO
SALGAR
Date: 2024.05.13
14:10:17 +0530
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
: 13/05/2024
: 13/05/2024
: 13/05/2024
5
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time
13/05/2024 2.00 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 13/05/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 13/05/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 13/05/2024
on