CRI. BA 1807/2022
ORDER
1
MHCC020098242022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1807 OF 2022
( CNR NO.:MHCC02­009824­2022 )
Amit Narendra Doshi
Age :­ 44 years, Occ.:­ Business.
Add.:­ 267/6, Karuna Sagar,
Deodhar Road, Matunga,
Mumbai No. ­ 400 019.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga
Police Station vide C.R.No.534/2021)
…Applicant/Accused
…Respondent/State.
Appearance:­
Mr. Lalchandani along with Ganesh Iyer, Advocate for the
applicant/Accused.
Mrs. Seema Deshpande, Ld. Addl. P.P., for the State/respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ANAND PANDURANG KANADE (C.R.60)
DATE : 04.10.2022.
ORDER
1.

Vide present application under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant requested to release him on bail in
Crime No. 534 of 2021 registered at Matunga Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code r/w.
3, 4, 5, 8, 13 of M.O.F.A. Act.

CRI. BA 1807/2022
2.

2
ORDER
Prosecution case in brief is as under:­
Vijay Purushottamdas Pattani is resident of Room No. 09,
Plot No. 93, Sheela House, Sion (E), Mumbai. He lodged report with
Matunga Police Station alleging therein that in January 2016 father of
applicant came to his clinic and informed about his family project which
is to be commenced as Ramgufa Co­operative Housing Society,
Matunga, Mumbai. It is alleged that the applicant and his mother
Charul, co­accused made representation that they are constructing 14
storey building. Accordingly, informant decided to purchase the flat on
14th floor for Rs. 3,05,00,000/­. On the next day, applicant has asked for
the booking amount of Rs. 81,00,000/­. Accordingly, complainant has
issued five cheques of the amount of Rs. 81,00,000/­. Thereafter,
complainant learnt that co­accused Charul is a proprietor of Adinath
Developers whereas present applicant/accused is attorney. It is further
alleged that the complainant and present applicant/accused entered
into the agreement and both mutually agreed with certain conditions
including refund of token amount with interest, if the project is not
completed within stipulated time. Till the year 2018, the project was
not completed. Hence, the complainant approached the present
applicant/accused and demanded amount. However, applicant/accused
issued the cheque amount of Rs. 81,00,000/­. On the presentation of
cheque to his banker, it was dishonoured for “insufficient funds”.
Thereafter, complainant filed the proceedings u/s. 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act. The complainant time and again approached the
applicant for return of the amount. However, the applicant did not pay
any heed. Resultantly, complainant has no alternative except to lodge
the report against the applicant/accused and co­accused Charul. On the
basis of report of Vijay, Crime No. 534 of 2021 has been registered
against the applicant/accused.

CRI. BA 1807/2022
3.

3
ORDER
During the course of investigation, I.O arrested the
applicant/accused on 03.01.2022 and since 07.02.2022, applicant is in
judicial custody. The applicant/accused has filed this application to
enlarge him on bail. He raised grounds that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The complaint was lodged against the
Charul Doshi who has been released on anticipatory bail. All the
allegations are against Charul Doshi. Applicant is not proprietor of
company i.e. Adinath Developers and payment was made in the name
of company i.e. Adinath Developers. The applicant/accused has been
implicated in the present crime being the son of main accused Charul
Doshi. He further raised grounds that M.O.U. is not entered by the
applicant/accused because the applicant is not proprietor of the
company and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is
permanent resident of Mumbai. On the aforesaid grounds, applicant
prayed to enlarge him on bail.
4.

Ld. Addl. P.P. and I.O. filed their Say at Exh – 2 and
resisted the bail application. It is submitted that the duped amount of
Rs. 81,00,000/­ is yet to be recovered. The applicant/accused has also
cheated to other persons. There is possibility of pressurizing and
tampering of prosecution evidence and also possibility absconding of
accused, if he is enlarged on bail. On aforesaid grounds, it is prayed to
reject the bail application.
5.

Heard both sides. Perused papers on record. After going
through the papers on record, it reveals that after investigation charge­
sheet came to be filed against the applicant/accused and co­accused
Charul Doshi. It also reveals that applicant/accused executed the
M.O.U. in favour of Shreyansh Pattani and Akashi Pattani for the Flat
CRI. BA 1807/2022
4
ORDER
No. 1401 on the 14th floor. The applicant/accused has executed that
M.O.U. as a proprietor of Adinath Developers. After going through the
papers filed by applicant/accused, it reveals that the plea of
applicant/accused is recorded on 19.03.2022 in C.C.518/PW/2022. It
also reveals that the examination in chief of complainant was recorded
on 06.05.2022 and matter is adjourned for cross­examination. In the
present case, complainant has filed on record copy of adjournment
application filed by the applicant/accused in C.C. No. 518/PW/2022. It
reveals that on 22.04.2022 applicant/accused filed an application for
adjournment in that application. He submitted that he is ready to return
the amount on first informant. It means that trial of the case is
commenced. The complainant has also filed on record copy of letter
issued by Assistant Engineer of building project Urban I within the
jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai dated
15.02.2022. It reveals from it that the applicant/accused had not taken
any permission for construction of building project. After going through
the papers on record, I am of view that the allegations against the
applicant/accused are well founded. It prima­facie reveals that right
from the inception of the present transaction the applicant/accused
appears to have cheated the complainant. He induced the complainant
to purchase the flat which construction never began nor was delivered
to him. Further, applicant/accused issued cheques which were also
dishonoured. I have already pointed that the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate recorded plea of the applicant/accused and examination in
chief of complainant is over and matter is adjourned for cross­
examination of complainant. In my view, possibility can not be ruled
out that the applicant/accused tamper the prosecution evidence and
remain absent at the time of trial, if he is enlarged on bail.

CRI. BA 1807/2022
6.

5
ORDER
In the present case, advocate for applicant relied on
following case laws:
I.

Sanjay Chandra v/s CBI, AIR2012SC830, it has been held by
the Hon’ble Apex Court that, the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of
bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation
of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.
II.

Smruti Rajan Mohanty V/s. State of Odisha reported in
MANU/OR/0032/2022, the Hon’ble Orissa High Court has held that,
bail cannot be refused as an indirect method of punishing accused
person before he is convicted – Furthermore, it has to be borne in mind
that there is as such no justification for classifying offences into
different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on
ground that offence involved belongs to a particular category – It
cannot, therefore, be said that bail should invariably be refused in cases
involving serious economic offences.
Considering prima­facie that the accusations against the
applicant/accused are well founded and commencement of trial and
possibility of absconding of accused, I am of view that the ratio laid
down in the above cited cases is not apt one to the present case and I
am of view that this is not fit case to enlarge the applicant/accused on
bail. In the result, I pass the following the order.

CRI. BA 1807/2022
ORDER
6
:ORDER:
The Criminal Bail Application No. 1807 of 2022 is rejected.

Anand
Pandurang
Kanade
Digitally signed
by Anand
Pandurang
Kanade
Date:
2022.10.19
16:18:28 +0530
(Anand P. Kanade)
Addl. Sessions Judge
Sessions Court,
Mumbai. C.R. 60
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 04.10.2022
: 15.10.2022
: 19.10.2022
CRI. BA 1807/2022
ORDER
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
19/10/2022
, 4.20 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mr. Prasad S. Pednekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)

HHJ Anand P. Kanade,(C.R.No.60)
Addl. Sessions Judge.,City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai.

Date of pronouncement of /Order
04.10.2022
Order signed by P.O. on
19.10.2022
Order uploaded on
19.10.2022