MHCC020055092022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 26­04­2022
: 26­04­2022
: 04­05­2022
: 0 Year, 0 Month, 8 Days
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.968 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO. 58 OF 2022
Chhaya Kakasaheb Kharat @
Chhaya Dhanaji Chandanshive
Age : 41 years, Occ:Maid.
R/at room no.1701,
17th floor, C­Wing,
Shri Laxmi CHS,
Near Mahindra Tower,
Mumbai­400 013.

…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Worli
Police Station, Mumbai,
vide C.R. No.58/2022)
… Non­applicant
Appearance :­
Mr. Ajay Jaiswal, Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused.
Ms. Ashwini Rayakar, Ld. APP for respondent/State.
CORAM :
DATE :
H.H.J. SHRI R.J. KATARIYA
(C.R.NO.56).
04th May, 2022.

ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 1.
Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Ajay Jaiswal for the applicant and
­2­
BA 968/22
Ld. APP Ms. Ashwini Rayakar for the State.
2.

Present application is filed by the applicant for grant of
bail in Crime No.58/2022 registered with Worli Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 r/w
34 of IPC.
3.

It is the case of prosecution that informant Rajesh Tikam
Makwana lodged report dated 04.03.2022. Informant was intending to
purchase residential room. Informant learnt that applicant is property
agent. In the month November, 2016, informant came in contact with
the applicant. The applicant assured informant to avail room in Worli
area at low price for him. After some days, applicant introduced co­
accused Bharti Shankar Pawar, Jyotsna Jagannath Shinde and Geeta
Gautam Kamble with the informant as vendors, who desired to sale out
their rooms. It is alleged that the applicant and co­accused obtained
Rs.47,25,000/­ from the informant under pretext to sale rooms of the
co­accused and also one room of Avinash Pawar. The said rooms are
said to be situated in the BMC Chawl at Worli. The agreements were
executed in favour of the informant. The applicant also signed as
witness and is party to the deal. It is alleged that inspite of obtaining
amount from the informant rooms were not given to the informant by
the applicant and co­accused. On the basis of report lodged by the
informant, crime came to be registered against the applicant and co­
accused.
4.

The Learned advocate for applicant submitted that
applicant is falsely implicated in the crime. She has no concern with the
­3­
BA 968/22
alleged offence. She is merely witness to the transaction. The applicant
is widow lady. Her small daughter and mother are dependent on her. It
is submitted that applicant is behind bar since more than one month.
The applicant ready to abide the conditions imposed hence, prayed for
grant of bail. Learned advocate for applicant placed reliance on
following case laws­
(a) Khemlo Sakharam Sawant Vs. State [(2001) 2 BOMLR
875] in this case Hon’ble Bombay High Court pleased to grant bail to
the applicant for the offence u/s 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(b) Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad Vasant Kulkarni
Vs The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No.4258 of 2010
with Criminal Application No.511 of 2010 decided on 18.10.2010]
wherein it is observed by Hon’ble High Court that Magistrate is entitled
to grant bail in the cases triable by him even though, punishment
prescribed is to the extent of imprisonment for life and directed Learned
Magistrate to decide the application.
5.

Per contra, vide Say (Exh.2), Ld. APP opposed the
application. It is submitted in the say that the applicant and co­accused
had obtained amount under pretext to sale rooms in the BMC chawl to
the informant. They had executed agreements in his favour. The co­
accused are yet absconding. The investigation is yet not completed.
Hence, prayed for rejection of the bail application.
6.

Perusal of FIR, there are specific allegations against the
applicant being involved in the commission of said offence. The role of
the applicant is major. She along with other co­accused alleged to
obtained amount from the informant under pretext to sale rooms of the
­4­
BA 968/22
co­accused to the informant. The investigation is in progress. I have
gone through the case law relied by Learned advocate for applicant.
With great respect to the ratio laid down therein, same is not helpful to
the applicant. In view of gravity of offence and specific major role of the
applicant, she is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Hence,
I proceed to pass following order­
ORDER
Bail Application No.968 of 2022 is hereby rejected and
disposed off.
RAJESH
JAGURAM
KATARIYA
Date : 04.05.2022
Typed on
Checked on
Signed on
:
:
:
04.05.2022
04.05.2022
04.05.2022
Digitally signed by
RAJESH JAGURAM
KATARIYA
Date: 2022.05.04
17:23:11 +0530
( R.J. Katariya )
Addl. Sessions Judge(C.R. No. 56)
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
­5­
BA 968/22
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
TIME
04.05.2022
Name of the Judge
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
Judgment/order uploaded on
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Umesh Jadhav (Typist)
HHJ Shri R.J.KATARIYA
(CR No.56)
04.05.2022
04.05.2022
04.05.2022