Bail Application No.108/2024.

MHCC020007402024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2024.
IN
CR. NO. 50 OF 2023.

Balu Krishnamurti Shetti.

… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance Wadala T. T. Police station
Vide Cr. No.50/2023).

… Respondent
Appearances :Ld. Adv. V. S. Tiwari for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Abhijeet Gondwal for the State.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Balu Krishnamurti Shetti
being accused in C.R.No.50/2023 registered with Wadala T. T. Police
Page 1 of 8
Bail Application No.108/2024.

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
(hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).

This is an
application preferred by the applicant/accused post filing of chargesheet.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

Facts of the case are reproduced for the purposes of
convenience. It is the case of the prosecution that in the month of
December 2021, the informant was looking for residential premises
for his son and at that time the informant met one Farhan, an Estate
Agent. It is stated that said Farhan introduced informant with one
Balu shetty who in turn showed the informant such room premises at
Truck Terminal Road, Kokari Agar, Mumbai and the consideration for
the said room was stated to be Rs.6 lakhs. After negotiations the deal
was fixed and finalized at Rs. 4.5 lakhs. Thereafter, the said Balu
shetty informed the informant that the original owner of the said
room is one Ganesh Pillai and he has purchased said room from him.
Accordingly, as on 21.12.2021, the informant advanced sum of Rs. 2
lakhs and thereafter as on 27.12.2021 a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was
tendered, while the remnant amount of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced in
cash as consideration against said room. Further, sale agreement,
Power of Attorney and affidavit was executed between Shekhar Pillai
and complainant and it was requested that the said Balu shetty
should renovate the said premises and give it to the informant in
good condition. Thereafter the said Balu shetty prepared leave and
Page 2 of 8
Bail Application No.108/2024.

license agreement between informant and Muttu Pandian Tevar for
monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/-.
3.

It is further alleged that as on 17.12.2022 when the
informant went to the said room for collecting rent of said premises
and in case if the tenant fails to pay rent to ask him to vacate
premises, it was informed by Muttu pandian that said Balu shetty had
rented him the said premises on heavy deposit and unless he gets his
full refund, he won’t vacate the said premises and also won’t give
rent as well. Thus, the informant lodged complaint against the
accused persons and offence was registered under sections ibid.

4.

The Ld. Advocate for applicant states that, applicant is
falsely implicated and is not connected with the commission of
present crime. It is further stated that the bike is already seized by
the sleuth of the respondent agency. The FIR is registered at a belated
stage. And that the co-accused are enlarged on bail. It is further
stated that, there are no antecedents to the discredit of applicant and
thus the Ld. Advocate for applicant hence prayed for enlargement of
applicant/accused on bail.

5.

Per contra, the prosecution filed its reply vide Exh.2 and
inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. It is stated
that the entrusted sum was utilized by the applicant/accused to his
personal use which he collected from various innocent people under
the garb of procuring house for them. The car purchased by the
applicant/accused in his son’s name is already seized. It is further
stated that the applicant/accused has cunning operated through the
Page 3 of 8
Bail Application No.108/2024.

account of other people instead on his own account which was his
pre-mediated thought. Applicant/accused is also alleged with the act
of forging the document between the informant and the owner of the
premises. Prosecution apprehends for a racket to be operational
under
the
present
crime.

Prosecution
further
apprehends
abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatenings to prosecution
witnesses at the hands of the applicant/accused. Thus Ld. Prosecutor
prayed for rejection of the application.
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for state.
Perused, application and reply filed by the State.

7.

On meticulous examination of the case record it evinces to
myself that, entire transaction initially revolves between informant,
one Farhan, the applicant/accused and Muttupandian Tevar. It is
pertinent that, undoubtedly the role of the applicant/accused has
been located and that, he had appraised the informant with regard to
the purchase of such premises and post purchase of such premises for
renting out the said premises. Apart from the factum of appraisal the
prosecution at this juncture has not brought anything on record in
prima-facie to propel for such forgery being committed by the
applicant/accused. Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has filed and
relied upon two case laws which ensue as under.
1. Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another, AIR 2022 Supreme Court
3386.
2. Menino Lopes Vs. State of Goa, 1995 (1) Bom.C.R.
334.
Page 4 of 8
Bail Application No.108/2024.

8.

Considering the conspectus of the aforesaid case laws, I do
humbly submit that, they are salutary to myself.

The Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Menino Lopes (Supra), has
observed as under,
“8. We have also taken note of the fact that the
other two accused persons have already been
released on bail. While it cannot be a strait-jacket
formula that the accused must be released on bail if
his co-accused has been so released, because the
accusation against the latter may be of lesser gravity
and
there
may
be
other
circumstances
differentiating one co-accused form the other, yet if
the co-accused persons are otherwise equally
placed, then there may be no good reason why an
accused shall be denied bail where his co-accused
has been released. This is also the view of Chief
Justice Harries in Kamla Pandey (Supra) where he
said that “I cannot see what real danger is in
granting this man bail when his co-accused has
been granted bail.” We have also noted that, as the
record now stands, the allegation against one
accused, who has already been released on bail, is
probably graver that the applicant before us.”
9.

In view of the aforesaid observation the said case law can
be well applied to the instant case, as apparently the role assigned to
the applicant/accused is primarily with regard to the appraisal. So
also, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. Nothing is stated to
be recovered at the instance of the applicant/accused.

The
apprehension of the prosecution can be taken care of by saddling
stringent conditions on the applicant/accused including marking of
Page 5 of 8
Bail Application No.108/2024.

his presence before the respondent agency. In the backdrop of the
aforesaid facts, I hold that application deserves consideration. Hence
order infra :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.108/2024 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Balu Krishnamurti Shetti
being accused in C.R.No.50/2023 registered with
Wadala T. t. Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, be
released on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
3. The applicant/accused and his sureties shall
provide their respective residential addresses,
mobile numbers and email addresses, if any. The
applicant/accused shall intimate any such change in
address or telephone number and Email ID
forthwith.
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 Wadala T. T.
Police Station 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
Page 6 of 8
Bail Application No.108/2024.

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. Any breach of the conditions in this bail order shall
entail cancellation of bail forthwith.
10.Bail Application No.108/2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 22.02.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.02.28
17:43:12 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.37)
Dictated on
: 22.02.2024.
Transcribed on : 23.02.2024.
HHJ signed on : 28.02.2024.

Page 7 of 8
Bail Application No.108/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
28.02.2024
05.42 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
HHJ DR. SHRI A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
22.02.2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O.
on
28.02.2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on
28.02.2024
Page 8 of 8