1
B.A. 1053/24
MHCC020065702024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.1053 OF 2024
Jerry Philips Jacob
Adult, Indian
Age – 46 years, Occ : Service,
Add – Disha Apartment, Flat No.303,
Opp. Chamunda Hospital,
B.P. Road, Kandarpada, Dahisar (E),
Mumbai 400 068.
– Versus The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of DCB CID Unit VIII
vide CR. No.33/2024)
(corresponding C.R.No.298/2024,
Vileparle Police Station)
… Applicant
… Respondent
Appearance :Adv. Kanishk Jayant / Adv Antara Jayant for the applicant.
APP Mr. Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 04/05/2024
ORDER
This is bail application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of
The Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection
with CR. No.33/2024 (corresponding C.R.No.298/2024, Vile Parle
2
B.A. 1053/24
Police Station) registered with DCB CID Unit VIII , Mumbai for the
commission of offences punishable u/sec. 420, 370, 323, 342, 346, 347,
386, 504, 506, 34, 120(B) of The Indian Penal Code and Section 10,24
of the Emigration Act, 1983.
2.

It is the contention of the applicant / accused that he is
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is
arrested on 25.03.2024. The applicant / accused submits that he has
undergone custodial interrogation. The investigation is completed. The
applicant is the only earning member in the family. There is no point in
keeping the accused behind bars till conclusion of trial. There is no
criminal antecedents against the accused. He is the permanent resident
of his given address therefore he prayed for releasing him on bail.
3.

The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply
vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is
released on bail there are chances that he may flee away from justice. If
the accused is released on bail there are chances of threatening of
prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence,
prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.
4.

Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard
the ld. Advocate for the applicant, ld. APP for the respondent / State.
5.

I have gone through the application, reply, documents filed
on record. It is the case of the prosecution that the report is lodged by
one Siddharth Yadav alleging that the applicant / accused and his
associates are engaged in human trafficking. The informant Siddharth
through one of his relative approached to one Jitendra who was
3
B.A. 1053/24
working as chef in one hotel at Vile Parle, Mumbai. Said Rohit informed
the informant about the applicant as agent for securing job at abroad.
Accordingly, the informant showed his interest in securing job at
abroad. It is further alleged that he alongwith some other persons were
forcefully taken to Laos. There they were engaged in bogus call center.
When they were tried to return to India they were threatened with the
life. It is alleged that there was extortion with threat to life. They were
also threatened not to complain on returning to India. It is alleged that
the applicant did not allow said persons to return to India. For return to
India they were demanding amount. There was no valid licence with
the applicant’s agency for securing job at abroad. On the basis of this
complaint offence is registered against the applicant / accused and
other accused.
6
The investigation is proceeded. During the course of
investigation the applicant / accused came to be arrested on
25.03.2024. The police have received various e-mail of the affected
persons. The police also have recorded the statement under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. of witness Rena Mendosa. It was transpired in the
investigation that in the bank account of the co-accused Godfree, on his
demand, one Mr. Vimal Chaturvedi has deposited Rs.92,000/- for
release of Mr. Divakar Chaturvedi.
7.

I have gone through the statement recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. Said witness has also narrated about her detention at Laos
and release thereafter. The applicant has disputed the applicability of
Section 370 of IPC. He relied upon the judgment in Rajumar V/s. The
State of Karnataka (2022 SCC OnLine Kar 660). I have gone through
the ratio laid down therein. There is serious allegation of wrongful
4
B.A. 1053/24
detention and human trafficking and unlawful extortion by giving
threat to the life. The accused is arrested on 25.03.2024. The
investigation in the offence is in progress. The investigation is at
primary stage. The victims were employed and detained for illegal call
center. By offering job at Thailand, the victims were taken to Laos. The
applicant has actively participated in the crime. Release of accused will
hamper the investigation. If the applicant / accused is released on bail
he will tamper with the prosecution evidence. Considering all these
facts and material on record. The applicant is not entitled to be released
on bail. In the result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.1053 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.
RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Date : 04/05/2024
Dictated on
: 04.05.2024
Transcribed on
: 06.05.2024
Signed by HHJ on : 07.05.2024
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Date:
2024.05.07
14:48:13 +0530
( RAJESH A. SASNE )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

5
B.A. 1053/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
07/05/2024
2.41 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A.
Room No.)
Sasne, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 04/05/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
07/05/2024
ORDER uploaded on
07/05/2024