Bail Application No.237/2024.
MHCC020017202024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 237 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 56 OF 2023.
1.Arman Shoukin Khan,
… Applicants.

2. Ravi Munnalal Jolaniya.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Sion Police Station,
Mumbai, Vide C.R.No.56/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Krishna Chaudhary 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 : 05TH FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicants Arman Shoukin Khan and
Ravi Munnalal Jolaniya being accused in C.R.No.56/2023 registered
with Sion Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
427, 454, 380 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred
to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.237/2024.
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”). This is a second bail application
filed by the applicant/accused No.2.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

Facts of the case are reiterated for the purposes of
convenience. It is the case of the prosecution that, as on 23.02.2023
at about 16.00 hours to 17.00 hours at the place of his sister-in-law’s
husband i.e. at New Nandadeep Building, Room No.19, Near Sion
Hospital, Sion, Mumbai, certain unknown individuals by usage of an
iron equipment has broke opened the door of the residence and
thereafter, has committed a theft of cash of Rs.7,50,000/- from the
wooden cupboard. Hence, the complaint was filed and an offence
was registered under Sections ibid post filing of charge-sheet.

3.

Further, during the course of investigation, statement of the
informant was recorded and it also further revealed that, in all
ornaments to the tune of Rs.47,05,000/- inclusive of the aforesaid
cash was stolen by an unknown person. Thereafter, the sleuth of
respondent agency verified the CCTV Footage and it revealed that,
two such individuals were found to have broke opened the said house
of the informant’s sister-in-law. It further revealed that, the said two
individuals were at that time i.e. during the course of investigation
were found to be in the custody of Mira Road-Bhayndar
Commissionerate, Crime Branch, Unit 2. Accordingly, custody was
obtained and the applicant/accused were arraigned in the present
crime.

Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.237/2024.
4.

Ld. Advocate for applicants/accused state that, the
applicants/accused are falsely implicated and have no any connection
with the commission of the alleged offence.

Further, nothing is
recovered at the instance of the applicant/accused and charge-sheet
has been filed in the matter by the prosecution and that investigation
has already concluded. It is further stated that, the ingredients of
Section invoked against the applicant/accused do not match with the
role attributed to him. Further it is stated that the prosecution has till
date examined only 6 witnesses out of 20 cited witness and thus it
would take substantial time for conclusion thereby amounting to pretrial incarceration. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused
prayed for enlarging the applicant/accused on bail.
5.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2,
and inter alia have resisted the application upon various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the sum involved in the present crime is to
the tune of Rs.55,44,000/- and a majority quantum is yet to be
recovered. Also, that the applicants/accused are habitual offenders
and there are criminal antecedents of similar nature to their discredit.
Prosecution further apprehends abscondance, tampering of evidence
and threatening to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor
prayed for rejection of application.

6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for Applicant/accused and Ld.
Prosecutor for the State. Perused application and reply.

7.

On copious perusal of the case record, it papably evinces to
myself that the present application is filed by the applicant/accused
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.237/2024.
under Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the trial
before the Ld. Trial Court has not concluded within 60 days from the
date of its commencement and that the Ld. Trial Court has not
considered the said aspect.
8. It is evident that, the trial has already commenced and as per the
applicants/accused itself 6 witnesses have been examined till date,
out of 20 cited witnesses by the prosecution. It is pertinent that all
remnant 14 witnesses may not be necessarily examined, of course the
same would be the prerogative of the prosecution. It is pertinent that
Ld. Trial Court has stated for the provision under Section 437(6) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure are directory and not mandatory in
nature. This court differs with the said view, from the plain reading of
the provision itself it is abundantly clear that the provision under
Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory in
nature but it gives a discretion to the Court that for the special
reasons to be recorded in writing the Court before whom the
application for release is made may reject the application.
9.

I have perused the order of the Ld. Trial Court dated
09.11.2023, and the Ld. Trial Court has categorically stated for the
fact that there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons,
alongwith the same has also considered the abysmal track record and
lastly has stated for the factum of presence may not be secured
during the trial. Thus, such discretion of the Ld. Trial Court who at
this juncture has already commenced and proceeded with substantial
trial requires no interference and no case has been made out by the
applicants/accused for such release on bail. Therefore, in my
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.237/2024.
considerate view this is not a fit case of grant of bail. In the backdrop
of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application deserves no
consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.237/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 05.02.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.02.09
16:48:35 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 05.02.2024.
Transcribed on : 06.02.2024.
HHJ signed on : 09.02.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.237/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
09.02.2024
04.48 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
05.02.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
09.02.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
09.02.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6