BA 656/22
1
ORDER
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION 656 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC02­003800­2022 )
Jayesh Ramesh Kolambkar
Age: 33 Yrs, Occ: Business,
R/at. Room No.3, Bldg. No.03,
New B.D.D.Chawl,
Naigaon Police Line, Dadar,
Mumbai.

…Applicant/Accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
( At the instance of Vikhroli
Police Station vide C.R.No.557/22)
…Respondent/State.

Appearance:­
Adv. Mhaske, Advocate for the applicant/Accused.
Smt. Seema Deshpande, Addl. PP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT (C.R.60)
DATE : 13.05.2022
ORDER
1.

Vide present application under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant requested to release him on bail in
Crime No. 557 of 2021 registered at Vikhroli Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 384, 170, 406, 500, 504, 506 r/w.
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

BA 656/22
2.

2
ORDER
The prosecution case is that, on the pretext of getting bail
to the informant’s husband from 2 different prosecutions including one
under the Maharashtra Organized Crime Control Act, the accused
obtained Rs.93,17,251/­ from the informant by representing to her that
the money will be given to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Judge of the
Sessions Court, various police officers. Also, threatening that action will
be taken for corrupting these officers, misrepresenting himself to be
police officer or CBI officer the accused extorted money from the
informant. On the basis of FIR lodged by the informant, investigation
was carried into effect. Arresting accused Suraj, accused Samarth,
accused Hirendra, chargesheet came to be filed against them. In the
same chargesheet, the present applicant was shown to be wanted as he
could not be arrested as absconding.
3.

The learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant argued
that the only role attributed to the applicant accused is that amount of
Rs.2,75,000/­ was deposited to his account. However, by letter to the
bank he had asked the bank to make him known as to from where the
said funds came to his account. The applicant had requested the bank to
re­transmit the said amount which was deposited to his account and
accordingly the bank re­transmitted the said amount. There are no
criminal antecedents of the applicant. Therefore, the learned advocate
requested to allow the application.
4.

On the other hand, the learned APP argued that the
amount was withdrawn by the accused through ATM. The nature of
offence is serious and grave. Though chargesheet is filed, that is against
other accused. Supplementary chargesheet is yet to be filed in respect of
the present applicant. Yet investigation in respect of it is in progress.

BA 656/22
3
ORDER
Therefore, she requested to reject the application.
5.

On perusal of the record, it appears that the role of the
applicant is not limited to deposit of Rs.2,75,000/­ to his account. The
investigation reveals that when the informant and witness Sanjay came
down the building so as to give the golden ornaments to accused Suraj,
at that time the present applicant and another accused Hirendra were
with accused Suraj. In Novemer­December 2020 when the witness
Sanjay by making a phone call enquired with present applicant about
the gold ornaments, the present applicant told that the gold ornaments
have been pledged with a gold smith and he is demanding monthly
interest and asking as to when the due amount will be paid. Thus, the
same material clearly shows active involvement of the applicant in
commission of crime and that is not restricted to the deposit of
Rs.2,75,000/­ to the account of the applicant accused. There is prima
facie material against the accused showing that he committed the
offences. The matter of the offence has also to be taken into
consideration. The accused have defamed not only the police machinery
but also the judicial institution by representing that the amount will be
paid to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Session Judge and the High Court
Judge. The accused did not stop here but again extorted amount from
the informant threatening her that action will be taken against her as
she tried to bribe the judges. The gravity is of too serious nature. The
accused by such mis­representations have defamed the administration
of justice system. Considering existence of prima facie case, gravity and
seriousness of the offence and that the investigation in respect of
present applicant is still in progress and that the accused is likely to
influence the witnesses, it will not be appropriate to grant bail to the
applicant. Hence, order as follows is passed:
BA 656/22
4
ORDER
:ORDER:
1. The Criminal Bail Application 656 of 2022 is rejected.
DEEPAK
LAXMANRAO
BHAGWAT
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
LAXMANRAO
BHAGWAT
Date:
2022.06.02
11:33:50
+0530
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
Addl. Session Judge
Sessions Court,
Mumbai. C.R. 60
Date: 13.05.2022
BA 656/22
5
ORDER
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
02.06.2022,11.35pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. Revati V. Kadam
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
No.)

HHJ Deepak L. Bhagwat,(C.R.No.60)
Addl. Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order
13.05.2022
Order signed by P.O. on
02.06.2022
order uploaded on
02.06.2022