B.A. No. 956/2022.

MHCC020053792022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 956 OF 2022.
IN
C.C.NO. 234/PW/2022
Bhaskararao Ramulu Yesupogu
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of DCB CID Unit ­VII, Vide
C. R. No. 01 of 2022.)

… Respondent
Appearances :­
Ld. Adv. Mr. Jagdish Singh for the applicant/ accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State present.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED :19th JULY, 2022
ORDER
By this application the applicant/accused Bhaskararao
Ramulu Yesupogu seeks to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, (In short, “Cr.P.C”), as they being
accused in C.R. No.01 of 2022 registered with DCB CID Unit ­ VII,
Page 1 of 6
B.A. No. 956/2022.

Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short “IPC”).

THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPLICANT’S CASE ENSUES AS UNDER,
2.

The informant Rajni Rana lodged a complaint as on 7 th of
January 2022 that a person namely Ali Hashmi, known to her informed
that a person namely Bhaskar Rao i.e. the applicant/accused was in
need of money. As on 5th of January 2022 the informant along with the
said individual Ali Hashmi met the applicant/accused. The informant
was told that the applicant/accused has got one precious metal pot and
with the help of his friends he has sold it abroad to a foreign company
namely Cameco Corporation, Canada. Against the said transaction the
said company would pay € 15 billion and out of the said amount € 6.7
billion that is ₹ 55,000 crore is already transferred in the account of the
applicant/accused. The said amount of ₹ 55,000 crore is freezed by the
RBI in its foreign exchange department as ₹ 27 crores is to be paid
against tax to the RBI. Accordingly, the informant was asked to invest
such amount and against such investment she would be reimbursed by
way of 40% of share in the amount that was to be received by the
applicant/accused. Accordingly, and advance amount of ₹ 30,000 was
accepted at hotel Anantha, LBS road, Bhandup Mumbai. Thus, the
sleuth of DCB CID unit – 7, registered an offence against the accused
and they were put under arrest. During the course of investigation, it
revealed that the accused forged certain documents and used the said
documents for the purposes of cheating people.

Thus, the
applicant/accused being habitual in preparing forged documents and
Page 2 of 6
B.A. No. 956/2022.

obtaining such amount from the general public, offence was registered
and the applicant/accused was put under arrest.
3.

Ld. advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
Applicant accused is falsely implicated and the FIR in itself is erroneous,
illegal and not maintainable. It is further stated that, the offence is
triable by Magistrate. Also, it is the case of prosecution that the co­
accused Ali Hashmi had informed the agency that the applicant/accused
is habitual in preparing forged documents and taking amount from the
person.

There are no antecedents to the discredit of the
applicant/accused and the co­accused in the crime are enlarged on bail.
Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused claimed for parity and
prayed for enlargement of the applicant/accused on bail.
4.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide exhibit­
2, and inter alia have resisted the application upon various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the Applicant accused is a professional cheater.
Further, the forged documents and its PDF file are retrieved from the
mobile of the Applicant/accused dated 21st of January 2022. Further
such other electronic devices were also seized and it has revealed that
the documents were edited by way of CorelDRAW software. It has also
revealed that the Applicant/accused have forged documents in the
name of RBI, Finance Ministry (Union of India), DR DO, ISRO, raw, and
such other Indian administrative offices and multinational banks. The
sleuth has already corresponded with all such departments and
multinational banks and certain such correspondences from the other
side are awaited. Further, the prosecution apprehends abscondance and
Page 3 of 6
B.A. No. 956/2022.

tampering of prosecution evidence. Lastly, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed
for rejection of application.
5.

Heard learned advocate for Applicant/accused, and learned
prosecutor for the state. Perused application and reply.
6.

On meticulous examination of the case record it evinces to
myself that admittedly, the Applicant/accused was intercepted on the
same spot along with the co­accused. The retrieved data from the
mobile of the Applicant/accused categorically shows his active
involvement in the present crime. Apart from the same, certain other
incriminating and objectionable material was seized from the said
accused. So also the Applicant/accused has failed to explain the very
purpose of his presence over the spot and the Applicant/accused has
also not denied his connection with that of the co­accused.
7.

While deciding an application for bail it is settled that the
Court is required to see whether the prima­facie case exists or not. It is
not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits of
prosecution case.
8.

Further it is also evident that the Applicant/accused had
preferred a bail application before the learned magistrate court upon
same set of facts post­filing of charge­sheet and the said application was
rejected by the learned magistrate court. Therefore, post rejection of the
bail application by the magistrate court, the Applicant/accused has
failed to propel out such a substantial change in circumstance in order
to avail the benefit of enlargement on bail.
Page 4 of 6
B.A. No. 956/2022.

9.

Considering the case in hand it is evident that the
Applicant/accused in connivance with the co­accused had forged
documents in the name of various central institutions, national and
international banking institutions and the agency has corresponded
with such institutions pertaining to receipt of such returned
correspondence with regard to such documents. Therefore, the role of
the Applicant/accused is apparently established. In view of the same, I
do humbly submit that, the case laws cited and relied by the learned
advocate for Applicant/accused cannot be applied to the case in hand at
this juncture. The learned prosecutor categorically states that
correspondences from certain departments are issued while some are
awaited. And there is a like possibility that there could be enhancement
in the offences invoked against the accused.

Therefore, upon the
aforesaid set of facts, I do not find this as a fit case for grant of bail. In
the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, as the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra: –
ORDER
Bail Application No. 956/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 19.07.2022
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.07.26
16:35:00 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.37)
.

Dictated on
: 19.07.2022.
Transcribed on : 20.07.2022.
HHJ signed on : 26.07.2022.

Page 5 of 6
B.A. No. 956/2022.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
26.07.2022
04.34 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer Grade­I)
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI A. A. JOGLEKAR
Room No.)
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of
19.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by
26.07.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
26.07.2022
signed
Page 6 of 6