1
MHCC020035302024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 537 OF 2024
Dushyant Ashok Soni
… Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Trombay Police Station vide
C.R. No. 30/2024)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Mr.

Ashutosh
Shukla
a/w
J.S.

Yadav,
Ld.

Advocates
for
Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Sachin Patil, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. R.M.H. Jabali, Ld. Advocate for Intervener.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 16TH APRIL, 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.30/2024 registered
with Trombay. police station for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C.

2
2.

The applicant/accused submitted that he has not
committed any crime. He has been falsely implicated in this case.
The allegation made in F.I.R., even if they are taken at their face are
vague and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence. F.I.R. is vague one. Applicant is ready to comply the
conditions imposed by the Court. Hence, applicant/accused prayed
for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R. No.30/2024
registered with Trombay. police station.
3.

Investigating officer submitted the say at Exh.02 and
resisted bail application on the ground that offence is serious in
nature. During investigation prima facie it revealed that applicant
prepared forged documents and cheated to complainant. If bail is
granted to applicant/accused then he will tamper prosecution
witnesses. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail
application.
4.

Informant suo moto appeared in this case and filed
intervention application at Exh.4 and resisted bail application. It is
submitted by informant that applicant/accused prepared forged
documents and said documents are in custody of accused.
Applicant/accused prepared false receipt and tried to illegally grab
flat of complainant. Applicant/accused has committed fraud with
other people. Applicant/accused is trying to mislead Court in order
to run away from liability of crime committed by him. Lastly,
intervener prayed for rejection of bail application.
5.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla a/w J.S. Yadav for
the applicants/accused, Ld. APP Sachin Patil for Respondent/State
3
and Ld. Adv. Mr. R.M.H. Jabali, for Intervener at length. Intervener
filed written arguments at Exh.5.
6.

It is argued by Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused that
applicant/accused purchased premises by registered Agreement of
Sale dated 26.12.2013. He argued that applicant periodically made
payment to informant. The arrest of applicant is illegal one. He
argued that civil suit bearing No.2642/2023 is pending between
parties before City Civil Court, at Dindoshi. He submitted that
entire issue is only a civil dispute and colour of criminal case had
been painted by informant. He submitted that entire investigation is
completed. Hence, he prayed for grant of regular bail. In support of
his submissions, he placed reliance upon following rulings :1.

MANU/AP/0314/2006 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andra Pradesh, Bheri Nageshwara Rao V/s. Mavuri Rao.

2.

MANU/SC/1108/2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Paramjeet Batra V/s. State of Uttarakhnad.

3.

MANU/SC/0079/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Usha Chakraborty V/s. State of West Bengal.

4.

MANU/SC/1902/2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Ravindra Saxena V/s. State of Rajasthan.

7.

On the contrary Ld. APP Sachin Patil for State argued
that offence is serious in nature. Investigation is in progress. He
argued that accused will destroy evidence and tamper witnesses.
Hence, he prayed for rejection of bail application.
8.

Ld. Advocate for intervener also argued that accused
prepared forged documents and cheated to complainant. He submit
4
that offence is serious in nature. Lastly, he prayed for rejection of
bail application.
9.

Perused the contents of the application and say filed by
investigating officer as well as the written submission of intervener.
I have gone through the F.I.R. The name of applicant is mentioned
in FIR. There are allegation against applicant/accused that in order
to grab the flat of complainant accused made forged signature of
complainant and also prepared forged documents and cheated to
the complainant for amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. As per F.I.R. the
incident occurred during 20.08.2020 till 25.01.2024. The F.I.R. was
lodged on 25.01.2024. As per allegation in F.I.R. the complainant
came to know about the alleged forged documents in September
2023. But the F.I.R. lodged on 25.01.2024. There is delay in lodging
the F.I.R. which is not explained in F.I.R. It is seen from the record
that the civil suit bearing No.2642/2023 is pending between
complainant and accused before City Civil Court, Dindoshi branch.
So also Eviction application No.227/2023 was also pending
between the parties and the said application was disposed of on
5.03.2024. It means dispute between the parties was eventually of
the civil nature. Though the F.I.R. attributes forgery and fabrication
of documents by the applicant, it appears to me to be essentially the
civil dispute. The complaint disclosing civil transaction may have a
criminal texture. In my view if civil remedy is available and is in
fact adopted as happened in this case, Court should not hesitate in
granting bail to applicant.
10.

In present case, investigation of the crime is completed.

Investigating officer has recorded statement of witnesses. The Ld.

5
Advocate for applicant/accused submitted that charge-sheet has
been filed against accused before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. In
my view as investigation of the crime is completed and charge-sheet
has been filed against accused, there is no hurdle to grant bail to
the applicant/accused. Moreover the alleged offence is triable by
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. It will take time to commence hearing
of case. In these circumstances, if bail is not granted to the
applicant/accused then it will amount to pre-trial conviction.
Therefore applicant/accused is entitled for grant of regular bail on
conditions. Therefore, bail application needs to be allowed. Hence,
I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal
Bail
Application
No.537
of
2024
filed
by
Applicant/accused is allowed.
2.

Applicant/accused namely Dushyant Ashok Soni resident of 701,
7th floor, Royal Accord CHS. Ltd., Haridasnagar, Borivali (West),
Mumbai be released on regular bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) along with one or two
sureties in like amount in connection with C.R. No.30/2024
registered with Trombay Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. on following
conditions :(a) The applicant/accused is directed to attend the concerned
Court on every date of the hearing of the case.
(b) The applicant/accused is directed not to commit similar types
of offence.
(c) 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
6
shall intimate any such change in address or telephone number
and Email ID forthwith.
(d) 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.
(e) The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of Ld.Trial Court.
(f) Breach of any conditions by the applicant/accused, shall result
in cancellation of bail.
3.

Provisional cash bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is
allowed to the applicant/accused for period of 5 weeks to furnish
surety from the date of release.

4.

Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

5.

Criminal Bail Application No.537 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 16.04.2024
Dictated on
: 16.04.2024
Transcribed on : 19.04.2024
Signed on
: 23.04.2024
[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
25.04.2024
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
4.30 p.m.

Prajwala V. Phodkar
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 16.04.2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 23.04.2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 25.04.2024
on