1
BA No.1127/2024
MHCC020069782024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1127 OF 2024
Deepak Chhaburao Ashtekar
Aged 42 years, Occ. : Business,
R/at : Niphad Karkhana, Tal. Niphad,
Dist. Nasik.

…..Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Tilak Nagar
Police Station, Mumbai in
C.R. No.40/2024).

…..Respondent
Appearance :Advocate Vikas Joshi for the applicant.
APP R.V. Tiwari for the respondent/State.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 29.
DATED : 10/05/2024
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.

Applicant/accused who is arrested in Crime No.40/2024 for
the offence punishable under Sections 395, 392, 170, 120-B, 201, 34 of
Indian Penal Code r/w 3, 25 of the Indian Arms Act has filed this
application for bail under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.
Prosecution filed say at Exh.2 and opposed the bail application.

2
2.

BA No.1127/2024
I have heard Advocate Vikas Joshi for applicant and APP R.V.

Tiwari for the prosecution.
3.

It is alleged in the FIR that, applicant and other co-accused in
this crime hatched conspiracy and accordingly, applicant forcefully entered
in the vehicle of victim Pankaj Umashankar Singh and by pointing fire arm
on him, robbed amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with the help of co-accused.
4.

Advocate for applicant submitted that, incident is dated
16.01.2024 at about 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and FIR came to be lodged in
the evening of 17.01.2024. Delay is not explained. Initial in the FIR,
victim Pankaj has mentioned robbing the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. After
two days in the supplementary statement, he stated the robbed amount
Rs.50,00,000/-. The entire charge-sheet is not disclosing how the amount
of Rs.50,00,000/- came in possession of Pankaj Singh. Accused No.1 Vinod
More was driver of Pankaj Singh. Till the time of alleged incident, accused
No.1 was not knowing that such amount was with Pankaj Singh. There is
no evidence showing that accused No.1 had any phone calls with coaccused, so that he could have informed to them for robbing the said
amount. Description of robber given by Pankaj is not matching with the
height and description of applicant. As per statement of Arun Tiwari, he
collected amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from Devidas Kanje and Sunil Shinde,
but statements of said two persons are not recorded.
5.

He further argued that amount of Rs.6,00,000/- which was
received to father of applicant by sale of agriculture land was kept in house
and the same is recovered as robbed amount under Section 27 of Evidence
Act. Applicant is not concerned with the crime. He came in Mumbai on
06.01.2024 in connection with job with Vijay Rasal. He is not involved in
3
BA No.1127/2024
the present crime. He is ready to abide any conditions. Hence, advocate
prayed to allow the application.
5.

APP instructed by Investigation Officer submitted that,
applicant and other accused hatched conspiracy and committed the present
crime. Applicant is the main accused who robbed the amount by pointing
the gun which is seized in the investigation. Amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has
been seized on the instance of applicant. Applicant is relative of wanted
accused
Vijay
Rasal.

Informant
had
identified
applicant
in
Test
Identification Parade. If released on bail, applicant may pressurize or give
threat to the informant and create hurdle in arrest of wanted accused Vijay
Rasal. Hence, APP prayed to reject the application.
6.

I have considered submissions and perused the charge-sheet. It
appears in allegation in the FIR that, the FIR is unknown person, but
description of the robber is given. Informant has identified applicant in
Test Identification Parade. Thus, it appears that applicant is the main
accused who used fire arm for robbing the amount. Though, in the FIR
initially amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was mentioned, but in supplementary
statement, informant has clarified that the applicant also taken away the
bag from boot space of the vehicle in which amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was
kept. There is statements of Arun Tiwari and Sagar Shetty to show that
informant had received said amount from Arun Tiwari. In view of that, not
recording statements of Devidas Kanje and Sunil Shinde have no
significance at this stage. Amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is seized from the house
of accused. His story of the said amount received from sale of land cannot
be accepted at this stage. Considering role of applicant and recovery of the
seized amount and his identification in Test Identification Parade, I am not
inclined to grant bail to accused. Hence, I pass following order :-
4
BA No.1127/2024
ORDER
Bail Application No.1127 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off accordingly.

Date : 10/05/2024
(N.G. Shukla)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay
5
BA No.1127/2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Typist
Upload date and time
Name of the Judge
: Mrs. Shravanti Karre
: 10th May, 2024 (At 05.27 pm.)

H.H.THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI N. G. SHUKLA (C.R.No.29)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 10th May, 2024
Order signed by P.O. on
10th May, 2024
Order uploaded on
10th May, 2024