1
Cri BA No.417-2024
MHCC020028132024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.417 OF 2024
Imran Abdul Mannan Shaikh,
Age: 47 Years, Occ: Service.

]
] …Applicant.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Shahu Nagar Police Station ]
Vide FIR No.251 of 2022)
] …Respondent.
Advocate Tushar Kochale for applicant.
APP Pankaj Chavan for the State.
Advocate Abdul Aziz Khan for intervenor.
CORAM :
SHRI. S.B. PAWAR,
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)
DATE
:
27th FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORDER
The applicant, who is under detention in connection with
FIR No.251 of 2022 registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station for
offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the
present application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
2.

The FIR is registered on the basis of complaint dated
28.07.2022 filed by first informant Mohd. Saif Shaikh. It is alleged that
first informant was in need of room for his business. The applicant
agreed to give his Room No.602, 6th Floor, S-1/A, Messiah Islampura
2
Cri BA No.417-2024
Co-operative Housing Society Limited, K.K. Krishnan Menon Marg,
Kunte Nagar, Kumbharwada, Dharavi, Mumbai on heavy deposit of
Rs.10,00,000/- to the first informant and executed registered agreement
of leave and licence dated 04.02.2020. The agreement was for a period
of 33 months. The first informant paid the amount till 10.02.2020 to
the applicant but the applicant avoided to hand over possession of the
room to the first informant. It was later revealed that applicant sold out
the room in favour of one Akbar Ansar Sayyed on 02.12.2021. The
applicant failed to repay the amount of heavy deposit to the first
informant. Therefore, complaint came to be filed leading to registration
of FIR.
3.
implicated.

Applicant seeks bail on the grounds that he is falsely
He has already repaid the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
mentioned in the FIR to the first informant before registration of FIR
and the said fact is suppressed by the first informant. First informant is
a money lender. False FIR is filed to extract money from the applicant.
He has no criminal antecedents. He is ready to comply with all terms
and conditions.
4.

Prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds that the
property involved in the offence is to be recovered, exact address of the
applicant is not known therefore, he may not remain present if granted
bail. There is possibility that applicant may threaten first informant and
witnesses and repeat the similar offence.
5.

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP and
learned Advocate for the intervenor. Advocate for applicant argued that
the applicant had repaid the amount much earlier of registration of FIR.

3
Cri BA No.417-2024
The agreement of leave and licence was not executed for possession of
the room but as a security to the loan which applicant has already
repaid. Till 05.12.2021 no steps were taken by the first informant to
recover the possession of the room and this fact goes to show that the
real purpose of the agreement was security to the loan. There is no
disclosure in FIR of any other transaction between the parties. The first
informant has suppressed the facts and has filed the FIR with oblique
motive to recover money. Therefore, he prayed that applicant be
admitted to bail.
6.

On the other hand, learned APP argued that there is
involvement of the applicant in the offence. The property and amount
involved in the offence is to be recovered.

The applicant was
absconding since registration of FIR. Therefore, it would be difficult to
secure his presence in the Court. Learned Advocate for intervenor, in
addition submitted that there were two different transactions between
the first informant and applicant. Memorandum of Understanding dated
04.02.2020 was executed between the parties and the amount paid by
applicant was adjusted in the due amount under Memorandum of
Understanding.

The
applicant
had
mortgaged
room
under
Memorandum of Understanding but he sold out the said room as well.
The case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
pending against the applicant. The transaction of leave and licence is a
different and separate transaction. The first informant could not seek
delivery of the room due to pandemic situation. Learned Advocate for
the intervenor further submitted that unless applicant gives undertaking
regarding payment of due amount, he can not be admitted to bail, as
police had to take much efforts to search and arrest the applicant.

4
7.

Cri BA No.417-2024
I have carefully considered submissions of both sides. I
have gone through the documents produced on record by the applicant
as well as by the intervenor. From the reply filed by prosecution, it
appears that the applicant was being traced after registration of FIR and
he was finally arrested from Bihar.

It is alleged in the reply that
applicant was staying at the said place under the name N. H. Shaikh
and was pretending to be a Doctor.

He came to be arrested on
15.01.2024 and produced before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on
17.01.2024 after availing transit remand from the learned Court at
Bihar. After initial police custody, he is in judicial custody.
8.

As reflected from the FIR, the first informant claims that
there was transaction of leave and licence in respect of a room of the
applicant and applicant had executed the agreement to give the room
on licence to first informant on heavy deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. The
agreement was for a period of 33 months commencing from
05.02.2020.
9.

Learned Advocate for applicant brought on record the
statement of account and other material to show that from the period
29.06.2020 till 03.07.2021 applicant transferred amount of Rs.10.64
lakhs to the first informant. Therefore, on the basis of the said material,
he submits that the entire amount of heavy deposit was already repaid
to the first informant much before registration of FIR.
10.

Learned Advocate for intervenor claims that there was
another transaction as per Memorandum of Understanding dated
04.02.2020 whereby the first informant had given friendly loan of
Rs.10,00,0000/- to the applicant and the applicant was to pay profit of
5
Cri BA No.417-2024
Rs.25,000/- per month to the first informant. As per the submissions of
learned Advocate for intervenor, the amount transferred by applicant
was adjusted against the due amount under the said Memorandum of
Understanding.
11.

It is pertinent to note that the agreement of leave and
licence and the Memorandum of Understanding are executed on the
same day. The details of transactions on record reflect that from
04.02.2020 to 10.02.2020, the first informant transferred aggregate
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the applicant. That is disclosed in the FIR.
Thereafter, in the month of March, 2020 he transferred additional
amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by two transactions. Nothing is brought on
record by the first informant to show that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/shown as friendly loan/investment was actually transferred to the
applicant at the time of execution of Memorandum of Understanding
dated 04.02.2020 or soon thereafter. As per the details of transactions,
in August, 2021 amount of Rs.8,20,000/- is transferred by the first
informant to the applicant.
12.

The said subsequent transactions, of March 2020 and
August 2021 does not prima facie appear to be in furtherance of the
Memorandum of Understanding and in any event, these transactions
can not make applicant liable to pay monthly profit under
Memorandum of Understanding, so as to adjust the repayment by him
against the due amount under Memorandum of Understanding. Before
the transfer amount in the month of August, 2021, the applicant had
repaid amount of more than Rs.10,00,000/- to the first informant.
Therefore, there is substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of
6
Cri BA No.417-2024
applicant that the first informant is involved in the business of money
lending.
13.

Nothing is recovered from the applicant during his
custodial interrogation. Further custody of the applicant is not required
for the purpose of investigation. The first informant has prima facie
suppressed the true transaction from the Court. There is no material to
show that amount of Rs.20,00,000/- is transferred by the first informant
to applicant in February, 2020 under two different transactions. The
criminal proceeding can not be used as a tool to recover amount.
Though it is the case of prosecution that the applicant was staying at
Bihar under different name, pretending to be a Doctor and his arrest
could be effected after making strenuous efforts, when the offence
levelled against the applicant is prima facie doubtful, his further
detention in jail is not warranted. Therefore, applicant deserves to be
admitted to bail on appropriate terms and conditions. Hence, following
order is passed:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.417 of 2024 is allowed.

2.

The applicant Imran Abdul Mannan Shaikh, who is accused in FIR
No.251 of 2022 registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station for offence
under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, be released on his executing PR
Bond of Rs.30,000 /- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and on furnishing
one or two sureties in the like sum on following conditions:(a)
The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

7
(b)
Cri BA No.417-2024
The applicant shall not tamper with evidence of the
prosecution.
(c)
The applicant shall not commit similar offence while
on bail.
(d)
The applicant shall not try to contact the informant or
witnesses personally or through anybody till conclusion of
trial.
(e)
The applicant shall submit documents regarding his
permanent address and contact details to the concerned
police station and the Court, within seven days of his release
and if in future, there is any change in his address or contact
details, intimate the same to the concerned police station.
(f)
3.

The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.

Breach of any of the above conditions shall entail the cancellation
of the bail.
4.

Provisional cash bail of Rs.30,000/- allowed for the period of six
weeks.
5.

Bail before learned trial Court.

6.

Criminal Bail Application No.417 of 2024 is disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 27/02/2024
Order Dictated on: 27/02/2024
Transcribed on : 27/02/2024
Checked on
: 28/02/2024
Signed on
: 28/02/2024
(S.B. PAWAR)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
8
Upload Date
28.02.2024
Upload Time
2.52 p.m.

Cri BA No.417-2024
Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court SHRI. S.B. PAWAR (CR 58)
Room No.)
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of 27.02.2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 28.02.2024
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 28.02.2024
on