1
MHCC020006592024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2024
Deepchandra Sureshbahadur Gaud
… Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of Chunabhatti Police Station
vide C.R. No. 530/2023)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Mr. Sainath Bhaji @ Mr. Ravishankar Dwivedi, Ld. Advocate for
Applicant/Accused.
Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicant/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing
him on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.530/2023 registered
with Chunabhatti police station for the offence punishable under
Sections 408, 120(B) of I.P.C.

2
2.

The applicant/accused submitted that he has not
committed any crime. The applicant/accused was not working with
the Owner. The applicant is not involved in the crime. The
prosecution recovered the amount of Rs.15,98,000/- from accused
No.1. The applicant/accused is nowhere concerned with the alleged
incident. The allegation made in FIR are false and concocted. The
applicant/accused is willing and ready to abide all the terms and
conditions imposed by the Court. Hence, applicant/accused prayed
for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R. No.530/2023
registered with Chunabhatti police station.
3.

Investigating officer submitted the say at Exh.02 and
resisted bail application on the ground that the accused persons
hatched
conspiracy
and
misappropriated
the
amount
of
complainant of Rs.16,00,000/-. The statements of the witnesses are
yet to be recorded. If the bail is granted to applicant/accused, then
he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and he will not remain
present before Court. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for
rejection of bail application.
4.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Sainath Bhaji @ Mr. Ravishankar
Dwivedi for the applicant/accused and Ld. APP Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe
for Respondent/State.
5.

On perusal of papers, it revealed that on the basis of
the report lodged by the informant namely Asif Barkat Ali Shaikh,
Chunabhatti police station registered the offence punishable under
Sections 408, 120(B) of I. P .C. vide C. R. No. 530/2023 against the
four accused persons. It is alleged that on 8.12.2023 at about 11.00
3
p.m. to 11.15 p.m. the accused No.1 Sonu was working with the
complainant.

The
accused
No.1
collected
an
amount
of
Rs.10,06,000/- from Wajid Ansari, Rs.2,00,000/- from Arif Ansari
and Rs.3,00,000/- from Prakash Gupta and Rs.1,00,000/- from
Shamim Ansari i.e. total amount of Rs.16,06,000/- towards the
collection of the business and accused No.1 not returned the said
amount to the complainant. Accused persons hatched conspiracy
and accused did not handed over the said amount to complainant
or the owner and dishonestly misappropriated the amount of
Rs.16,06,000/-. Hence, aforesaid complaint was lodged by the
complainant against the accused persons.
6.

It is to be noted that the FIR has been lodged against
accused Sonu Matre and during investigation, the name of
applicant/accused was revealed. In FIR the allegations are made
against accused No.1 Sonu that he collected an amount of
Rs.10,06,000/- from Wajid Ansari, Rs.2,00,000/- from Arif Ansari
and Rs.3,00,000/- from Prakash Gupta and Rs.1,00,000/- from
Shamim Ansari i.e. total amount of Rs.16,06,000/- but accused
No.1 did not handed over the said amount to complainant and
dishonestly misappropriated the amount. Thus the allegations of
misappropriation of the amount and not paying amount to the
complainant is against accused No.1 Sonu. There are no allegation
that applicant/accused defrauded the complainant by cheating and
by not returning the amount entrusted to him. The main accused
namely
Prem
was
applicant/accused
was
working
not
with
working
the
with
complainant.
the
The
complainant.

Therefore, applicability of Section 408 of I.P.C. in respect of present
applicant/accused is doubtful.

4
7.

In present case FIR is not showing name of
applicant/accused. The allegation made against applicant/accused
is that he alongwith other accused persons misappropriated amount
of Rs.16,00,000/- of the informant and alleged incident was
happened with planning in collusion and all of them were in
contact with each other. The remand report shows that the amount
of Rs.15,98,000/- recovered from accused No.1. Nothing has been
recovered from present applicant/accused. Therefore, further
detention of applicant/accused is not required.
8.

In present case it is revealed that during the course of
investigation,
investigating
officer
recovered
amount
of
Rs.15,98,000/-, one knife and one stick. Thus it appears that all the
amount has been recovered and only amount of Rs.8,000/- is
pending. The weapon is already recovered. Nothing is remained to
be recovered at the instance of applicant/accused. Therefore,
further detention of applicant is not required.
9.

It is seen from the record that applicant/accused is in
jail since 10.12.2023. No purpose will be served by keeping
applicant/accused behind bar. As far as applicant/accused is
concerned, investigation of crime appears to be completed. The
applicant/accused is ready to abide all the terms and conditions
imposed by the Court. Alleged offence is triable by Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate. It will take time to commence trial of the case. If bail is
not granted to the applicant/accused, then it will amount to pretrial conviction and therefore it is just and proper to enlarge
applicant on bail.

5
10.
the
Considering the nature of offence and role played by
applicant/accused
in
crime,
I
am
of
the
view
that
applicant/accused is entitled for regular bail on conditions.
Therefore, bail application needs to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to
pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal
Bail
Application
No.

99
of
2024
filed
by
Applicant/accused is allowed.
2.

Applicant/accused namely Deepchandra Sureshbahadur Gaud
resident of Dharavi, Mumbai be released on regular bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one or more
sureties in like amount in connection with C.R. No. 530/2023
registered with Chunabhatti police station for the offence
punishable under Sections 408, 120(B) of I.P.C. on following
conditions :(a) The applicant/accused is directed to attend Chunabhatti Police
station on every Sunday of each month in between 10.00 a.m. to
12.00 noon till filing of charge-sheet.
(b) The applicant/accused and his sureties shall provide their
respective residential addresses, mobile numbers and email
addresses, if any to investigation officer. The applicant/accused
shall intimate any such change in address or telephone number
and Email ID forthwith.
(c) The applicant/accused should not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
facts of case so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts to
Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with the
evidence and prosecution witnesses.
(d) The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
6
permission of Ld. Trial Court.
(e) Breach of any conditions by the applicant/accused, shall result
in cancellation of bail.
3.

Provisional
cash
bail
of
Rs.50,000/-
is
allowed
to
the
applicant/accused for period of 4 weeks to furnish surety from the
date of release.
4.

Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

5.

Criminal Bail Application No. 99 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 17.01.2024
Dictated on
: 17/01/2024
Transcribed on : 17/01/2024
HHJ signed on : 18/01/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
18/01/2024 1.55 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 17/01/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 18/01/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 18/01/2024
on