1
MHCC020035892024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 557 OF 2024
Mr. Ganesan Subramanyam Arundhudhiyar
… Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of R.C.F. Police Station vide C.R.
No. 645/2023)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Ms. Harshali Bhavsar, Ld. Advocate for Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Sachin Patil, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 11TH MARCH, 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.645/2023 registered
with R.C.F. police station for the offence punishable under Sections
364(A), 394, 387, 323, 341, 342, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2
2.

According to applicant/accused, he is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in this crime. He has not committed any
crime. There is no recovery from him. Investigation is completed.
Hence, no further custody of applicant/accused is required.
Applicant/accused is in jail from 6.03.2024. He is ready to abide by
the conditions imposed by the Court. Hence, applicant/accused
prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R.
No.645/2023 registered with R.C.F. police station.
3.

The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.02 and
resisted the application on the ground that applicant/accused is
principal accused and he has committed the crime alongwith other
accused persons. Applicant/accused is habitual offender. He has
committed
serious
offence.

If
bail
is
granted
to
the
applicant/accused, then he will tamper the prosecution witnesses
and will abscond. Investigating officer further submitted that if the
bail is granted to applicant/accused then he will not remain present
for trial. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail
application.
4.

Heard
applicant/accused
Ld.

Adv.

and
Ld.

Ms.
APP
Harshali
Mr.

Bhavsar
Sachin
for
the
Patil
for
Respondent/State at length.
5.

On perusal of case papers it appears that on the basis
of the report lodged by the informant namely Mohd. Sarfraj Sheful
Shaikh, R.C.F. police station registered the offence punishable under
Sections 364-A, 394, 387, 323, 341, 342, 504, 506, 34 of I. P .C.
vide C. R. No. 645/2023 against the accused persons. The
3
informant resides at Vashi Naka, Chembur from last 2 years
alongwith his family members. The informant is doing work of
loading and un-loading of goods at CST Railway station. On
31.10.2023 at about 11.30 p.m. the informant was going from
Nagababa Darga, Vashi Naka, Chembur by his scooty. At that time
accused No.1 Akib @ Batla and accused No.2 Ganesh Subramanium
@ Doreman and Sunita @ Rubina and Rana obstructed the motor
cycle of informant at Nagababa Darga, Vashi Naka, Chembur.
Accused persons parked their motor cycle in front of scooty of
informant and obstructed his way. Accused Akib abused to the
informant in filthy language and he forcibly took the informant at
Tata Nagar, Deonar colony, Govandi, Mumbai. Akib shown knife to
the informant and forcibly removed cash of Rs.10,500/- from the
pocket of pant of informant. Accused persons also removed clothes
of informant. Accused made call to the brother of informant and
demanded ransom amount of Rs.60,000/-. They also gave threat to
kill informant if the amount is not given. Therefore, informant
lodged report against accused persons at RCF police station.
6.

Perused contents of application and say filed by
investigating officer. Applicant/accused prayed for grant of regular
bail. I have gone through the proceeding. The name of the
applicant/accused is mentioned as accused No.2 in the FIR. There
are specific allegation in the FIR that on day of incident
applicant/accused came at Nagababa Darga at Washi Naka on
motor bike with co-accused, Akib and they parked their motor bike
in front of scooty of informant. There is allegation against accused
that they forcibly took informant at Tata Nagar, Gowandi and both
accused and co-accused Sunita abused and assaulted to informant
4
by fist blows. Accused Akib by showing knife to informant removed
cash of Rs.10,500/- from pocket of pant of informant. Role of
applicant/accused is specifically described in FIR. Therefore, it will
not be proper to enlarge accused on bail.
7.

In present case the offence punishable under Sections
364(A), 394, 387, 323, 341, 342, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. is
registered against the applicant/accused. Alleged offence is serious
in nature. The offence under Sections 364(A) of I.P.C. is punishable
with imprisonment for life. As offence is serious in nature, it will
not be proper to enlarge accused on bail.
8.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused submitted that the
informant has no objection for allowing the bail application of
applicant/accused. Applicant/accused placed on record copy of
affidavit of complainant alongwith Exh.3. In my view affidavit of
complainant cannot be considered at this stage. The informant has
specifically mentioned in FIR the role of present applicant/accused
in the crime. Practice of filing of affidavit of informant or witness at
the time of deciding bail application is deprecated. The possibility
cannot be ruled out that the accused might have influenced to the
informant. Therefore, in my view the affidavit filed by informant
will not help to the applicant/accused.
9.

Investigating officer has mentioned in his say that
applicant/accused is habitual offender. Thus, it appears that
applicant/accused is having criminal antecedents. If bail is granted
to him, then there is possibility that he will again commit similar
5
type of offence. Therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled for
grant of bail.
10.

It is argued by Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused that
there is no specific demand of money and there is no evidence in
this case and she prayed for grant of bail. In support of her
submission, she placed reliance upon ruling of Dheeraj Singh V/s.
State, the judgment reported in 2005 (83) DRJ 255. I have gone
through said ruling. In said case 14 witnesses were examined by
prosecution. Said case was part heard. However, in present case
evidence of prosecution is not yet commenced. In my view facts of
the said case and facts of the present case are not similar. Hence,
ruling submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused is not
helpful.
11.

In present case there are specific allegation in F.I.R.

against accused persons that they demanded ransom amount to
brother of informant. Role of applicant/accused is specific. Prima
facie there is sufficient material on record to show involvement of
applicant/accused. Hence, I find no substance in contention of Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused that there is no specific demand of
money.
12.

Considering the nature of offence and the role played
by the applicant/accused in the crime, I am of the view that he is
not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, application is liable to be
rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1. Criminal Bail Application No.557 of 2024 stands rejected.

6
2. Order accordingly.

Date : 11.03.2024
Dictated on
: 11/03/2024
Transcribed on : 12/03/2024
HHJ signed on : 13/03/2024
[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
14/03/2024 2.15 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 11/03/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 13/03/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 14/03/2024
on