Ashutosh Arvind Jamdade Vs State of Maharashtra Bail Application Bombay Sessions Court No 371 of 2024

MHCC020025692024
1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 371 OF 2024
Ashutosh Arvind Jamdade
Age 32 years, Occ: Self Employed
R/at:- Savkardada Galli, Manirajuri,
Tasgaon, Sangli, Maharashtra.

..Applicant/accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Marin Drive
Police Station, Mumbai.
(Crime No.247 of 2023)
…Respondent/State
Coram : Dr. Shri S. D. Tawshikar
(Court No. 10)
Heard on : 23.02.2024
Decided on : 23.02.2024
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Swapnil S. Patankar for the applicant/accused
Ld APP Shri Ajit Chavan for the respondent/State.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” in short) before filing of charge-sheet in
in connection with C.R.No. 247 of 2023, registered with Marine Drive Police
Station for an offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
171 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” in short).

2
2.

BA 371/2024
Perused application and reply (Exhibit-02) filed by the State. Heard
both sides.
3.

It has been alleged by the informant that his father had purchased
land admeasuring 14 Acre 20 Guntha (5.87 hectares) situated at Gundale
village, Tal and Dist. Palghar, in the year 2003. However, said land was forest
land, with limited ownership. The 7/12 extract bears endorsement of “forest
land”, in other rights column. It is alleged that the present applicant alongwith other co-accused gave false promise of removing the clog of limited
ownership from Forest Department. However, he sought some expenses for
completion of said task.
4.

It is alleged that from time to time an amount of Rs.22,75,600/-
was transferred/paid to accused/applicant. Some amount was directly paid
to present applicant by the father of informant under grab of payment of
Challan to Government as part and parcel for getting permission from
Government. It is alleged that despite reception of more then Rs.22,00,000/(Twenty two lakh only) applicant and other co-accused did not comply the
promise and further sought Rs.22,00,000/-. It is alleged that father of
informant died owing to tension out of this transaction. Thus, present FIR
came to be registered.
5.

Record reveals that applicant is arrested on 07.01.2024 and till
date he is behind bars. Yet chargesheet is not filed and thus investigation is
still in progress.
6.

Mr. Patankar the learned advocate for applicant took this Court
through FIR and other documents placed on record. He vehemently submits
that the allegations pertain from 20.10.2020 to 20.09.2021, however FIR is
registered on 25.11.2023. Thus, there is considerable delay in filing FIR. The
3
BA 371/2024
allegation of cheating to father of informant is there, however father of
informant, in his life time, did not lodge FIR. The learned advocate for
applicant submits that hardly an amount to Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) has
received by the applicant father. The same amount was towards some
transaction between parties in connection to alleged offence. Mr. Patankar
further submits that he has no role in preparing forged and fabricated
Challan. Police have registered two FIR’s against present applicant on same
day, though allegations pertain to different transactions. This shows the
modus operandi on the part of investigating officer to falsely implicate and
harass the applicant.
Mr. Patankar further submits that applicant is having serious heart
7.

ailment. Recently he was required to be hospitalized. He has placed on
record certain documents in that regard. Mr. Patankar further submits that
the alleged offence is triable by the Magistrate. Practically entire investigation
is completed therefore application needs to be considered sympathetically. He
further submits that the applicant’s old aged mother is depended on him.
There is no other earning member in his family. He has no criminal
antecedents except, other FIR, which is lodged against him on the same day,
as that of present one. Applicant is ready to abide conditions imposed by this
Court. He ultimately prays to allow the application.
Mr. Swapnil S. Patankar places reliance on following three
8.

Judgments.
I.

Injamam Shariff V/s State by Kengeri Police, in Criminal Petition
No.4045 of 2022, order dated 12.05.2022 passed by Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court.

II.

Sri Nanjundaiah V/s Union of India, in Criminal Petition No.45 of
2021, order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High
Court.

4
BA 371/2024
III. Suhas Dashrath Jagtap V/s State of Maharashtra , Interim
Application in Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2023, order dated
16.02.2024 passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
9.

Per contra Mr. Ajit Chavan, the Ld APP, strongly objects application
by filing detail reply. He submits that applicant is a habitual defrauder. He
poses himself close to some Minister and traps innocent persons. He submits
that in matter in hand there are several bank transactions showing transfer of
amount. Applicant is having lead role in the offence, as he was one who
promised to remove remark of ‘Forest Land’ from 7 x 12 extract of land of the
informant’s father.
10.

Mr. Chavan vehemently submits that though applicant claimed to
be having business of liaisoning (i.e. agent), however no proposal about the
land of the informant was ever submitted by the applicant before Forest
department or any other government office. He prepared false and fabricated
challans and has pretended informants family that he is about to complete
the work. This is clear cut case of cheating and forgery.
11.

Ld. APP further submits that there is ample material already
collected by the investigating machinery. Investigation is still in progress. If
applicant is released on bail, further progress of investigation would hamper.
Ultimately, he prays to reject the application. Investigating Officer is present
and has produced investigation papers for perusal of the Court.
12.

True, that the applicant is behind bars since 07.01.2024. It is
equally true that the investigation is still in progress and chargesheet is yet to
be filed. From the perusal of the FIR and other documents including
investigating papers it prima facie appears that, there is active involvement of
the applicant in luring the informant and his father to remove the clog
5
BA 371/2024
contained on 7/12 extract. He has extracted considerable amount from the
father of the informant under the garb of clearing the land from tag of “forest
land”. There seems element of cheating and fabrication on the part of
applicant.
13.

No doubt that applicant may be having some heart ailment,
however, it further appears that, he was given necessary treatment at
Government Hospital. It is needless to say that the similar medical-aid would
be provided by Jail Authority to the applicant/accused whenever required.
The Jail Authority is bound to provide necessary medical assistance to
applicant. Therefore, on the ground of health of applicant, at this stage, bail
cannot be granted.
14.

The authorities of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Hon’ble
Bombay High Court, relied upon by the learned advocate for applicant are
based on different factual aspects and therefore they cannot came in the aid
of present applicant. So far as as the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court in the Case of Suhas Dashrath Jagtap (supra) it needs to be noted that
applicant therein was behind bars since more than seven years, he has
suffered Cancer while in Jail and therefore in peculiar fact and circumstance
of Hon’ble Bombay High Court has granted bail during pendency of appeal
therein. Thus, in my humble view, this citation is not applicable in present
matter in hand.
15.

At the cost of repetition it is made clear that as there is ample
material collected by investigating officer and investigation is still in progress,
I am not inclined to grant bail. One more additional offence is registered
against applicant with allegation of cheating, which is lodged on the same
day at the instance of different informant. Thus, the pendency of more one
offence against applicant also make me to decline bail at this stage. Hence, I
6
BA 371/2024
pass following orderORDER
The Criminal Bail Application No. 371 of 2024 is rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

Date :23.02.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Corrected on
Singed on
: 23.02.2024
: 23.02.2024 & 26.02.2024
: 26.02.2024 (AOH)
: 27.02.2024
(Dr. S. D. Tawshikar)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
C.R.No.10
7
BA 371/2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
27-02-2024 at 05:30p.m
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Mr. Gopal N. Sutar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Date of
ORDER
Pronouncement
Dr. S.D. Tawshikar
C.R. No.10
of
JUDGMENT/ 23-02-2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on
27-02-2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
27-02-2024