B.A.1973/2022.
MHCC020109092022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1973 OF 2022.
IN
C.C. NO. 266/PW/2022
IN
C.R. NO.17 OF 2022
Ashutosh Jagdambaprasad Mishra
… Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of DCB CID, CIU,
Vide C.R.No. 17/2022)
…Respondent.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ashok Saraogi for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijit Gondwal for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2022.
ORAL ORDER
By
this
application
the
applicant
Ashutosh
Jagdambaprasad Mishra being accused in C.R.No. 17/2022 registered
with DCB CID CIU for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 384,
Page 1 of 8
B.A.1973/2022.
341, 34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as,
“IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.
The applicant/accused is arraigned as original accused No.
5 in the present crime and that the applicant/accused is an Assistant
Commissioner SGST.
The informant has lodged an offence against
accused No. 1 to 3 who are police officers attached with the Mumbai
Police.
Accused No. 4 is discharged and the applicant/accused is
arrayed as accused No. 5.
Apart from the same wanted accused
Saurabh Tripathi and Nilkanth Tiwari are yet to be arrested. It is stated
that, at the instance of wanted accused No. 1 i.e. Saurabh Tripathi, the
then DCP, CircleII.
Accused No. 1 to 3 used to take Angadiyas to
Mumba Devi Police Chowki and used to extort monies from them.
Accordingly, on receipt of such complaint Additional Commissioner of
Police, South Region informed it to the Police Commissioner, Greater
Mumbai, who in turn directed to conduct preliminary enquiry. Thus,
the preliminary enquiry report came to be submitted and it was held
that on the pretext of conducting enquiry the Angadiyas were illegally
restrained and further they were threatened of informing the conduct of
their business to the department of Income Tax, and on this count also
it was found that the accused No. 1 to 3 and others extorted monies
from them. Accordingly, offence was registered, accused No. 1, 2 and 3
were arrested for the offences under the Sections ibid. Thereafter, an
individual Pappu Kumar Gaund qua accused No. 4 who alleged to have
helped the accused in the matter was discharged under Section 169 of
Page 2 of 8
B.A.1973/2022.
Cr.P.C. And thereafter, on identifying the role of applicant/accused and
that he being inlaw of the wanted accused No. 1 i.e. Saurabh Tripathi
acted in connivance and was thereby put under arrest. It is alleged that
the wanted accused No. 1, Saurabh Tripathi in connivance with the
applicant/accused transferred sums to the applicant/accused by way of
Hawala and that the CDR and SDR analysis speaks in quantum. Thus,
the applicant/accused was accordingly arrayed in the offence.
3.
The Advocate for applicant/accused state that, the
applicant is falsely implicated.
It is further stated that, no role is
attributed to the applicant in the receipt of extorted amount and on
account of the revelations of coaccused no offence can be constituted.
It is categorically that, the main accused No. 1 to 3 whose role and
allegations attributed to them are more serious than the present
accused and the accused No. 1 to 3 are released on bail by the learned
predecessor of this court. It is further stated that, the test identification
parade was conducted of all the accused and the witnesses have failed
to identify the main accused and therefore the Applicant/accused is
entitled to bail. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed
for enlargement of the applicant/accused on bail and along with the
same he also has relied upon certain case laws which are mentioned in
the application itself.
4.
Per contra the Prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia have resisted the application on two grounds.
It is
categorically stated that, the applicant/accused was told to accept the
amount sent by Hawala at Uttar Pradesh by his inlaw i.e. wanted
accused Saurabh Tripathi. During the course of investigation it has
Page 3 of 8
B.A.1973/2022.
revealed that, the said amount sent by Hawala was so accepted by the
applicant/accused.
Further, Rs.1,50,000/ are recovered but the
remnant amount is yet to be recovered. Further, the place and source
of the amount received by the applicant/accused at Uttar Pradesh is yet
to be traced. Hence, Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
5.
Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused application, reply and the case laws relied by the learned
advocate for Applicant along with the prosecution material.
6.
The proceeding was heard as on 22.08.2022, wherein
either parties, their advocates made submissions and it was kept for
order is on 25.08.2022. As on today, that is 25.08.2022, the learned
prosecutor mentioned before this court that the investigating officer is
present and wants to make statement/submission before this court
pertaining to the matter. Accordingly, the investigating officer, Prashant
B. Sawant, API, DCB CID CIU, Mumbai, makes a statement that and
they are not going to ask further custody of the Applicant/accused. He
further submits that if this court is passing bail orders, the same be
considered
by
saddling
stringent
conditions
upon
the
Applicant/accused.
7.
A specific query with regard to the maintainability of the
bail application, postfiling of chargesheet and rejection of the earlier
application, the learned advocate for Applicant/accused stated that,
certain aspects were not agitated before this court which deserve
consideration. So also, it is categorically stated that, when the witnesses
Page 4 of 8
B.A.1973/2022.
have failed to identify the main accused during the course of test
identification parade, the Applicant/accused deserves enlargement on
bail, more especially in the light of the fact that when the main accused
cannot be attributed to any such allegation made by the prosecution at
this stage, the Applicant/accused cannot be attributed with any such
subsequent events in lieu of the subject matter/crime held. The
investigating officer present states that the prosecution does not require
further custody of the present Applicant/accused as investigation
pertaining to the same has been completed with. The investigating
officer apart from his statement vide exhibit – 4 purasis and has
reiterated the submissions made at bar. The learned prosecutor also
concedes for the same.
8.
Thus, in view of the statement/submission made by the
investigating officer and that the learned prosecutor has not resisted the
application, on the contrary the investigating officer categorically
submits and also states vide Pursis that the prosecution is not asking for
further custody of the Applicant/accused. Considering the gravity of the
matter this statement of the investigating officer and the purasis filed
thereto the same needs to be conveyed to the superiors of the
prosecuting agency as the same should not turn out to be in the betrayal
of the prosecution’s case in furtherance of this matter. Hence, in the
backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the application deserves
consideration. Hence, order infra:
ORDER
1. Bail Application No. 1973/2022 is allowed in terms
of statement made by I.O. and vide pursis at Exh. 4.
Page 5 of 8
B.A.1973/2022.
2. The applicant Ashutosh Jagdambaprasad Mishra
being accused in C.R.No. 17/2022 registered with
Crime Branch UnitDCB CID, CIU, Mumbai for the
offences punishable under Sections 392, 384, 341,
120(b) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be
released on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.1,00,000/
(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
3. The applicant/accused and his surety shall provide
their respective residential addresses, mobile
numbers and email addresses, if any.
4. The Applicant/Accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the
present case to dissuade them from disclosing such
facts to the Court.
5. The Applicant/Accused shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
6. The Applicant/Accused shall attend the Crime
Branch UnitDCB CID, CIU, Mumbai, on every
Tuesday and Friday between 11.00 a.m. and 4.00
p.m. until further order.
7. The Applicant/Accused shall surrender his passport
if any with the investigating officer. If the applicant
doesn’t have passport, he will furnish an affidavit to
that effect.
8. The Applicant/Accused shall not leave India
without permission of this Court.
9. Inform this order and the statement/submission of
the investigating officer to the D.C.P. of concerned
Zone and District Magistrate accordingly.
10. Informed the Ld M.M. Court accordingly.
Page 6 of 8
B.A.1973/2022.
11.
Bail Application No. 1973/2022 stands
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 25.08.2022
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.08.30
17:22:34 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 25.08.2022
Transcribed on : 25.08.2022
HHJ signed on : 26.08.2022
Page 7 of 8
B.A.1973/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
30.08.2022
05.21 p.m.
Vishnu Shinde
Stenographer (GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
25.08.2022
of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
30.08.2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
30.08.2022
Page 8 of 8