Cri.B.A.No. 95 of 2024 Order.

MHCC020006362024 Presented on Registered on Decided on Duration : 10-01-2024
: 10-01-2024 : 01-02-2024 : 0 years, 0 months, 22 days

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY, AT MUMBAI.

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 95 of 2024

Mahendra Narayan Sakpal
Age: 56 years, Occ. : Service
Room No. 17, JJ Wadi,
Near Marvali Church, R.C. Marg,
Chembur, Mumbai 400 075. …Applicant/Accused

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through DCB CID Unit VI C.R.No. 316/2022, (Chembur Police Station,
C.R.No. 666/2022, CCTNS No. 908/2022) …Respondent/Complainant

CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI S.D.KULKARNI, ADHOC ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
(COURT ROOM NO.66). DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2024.

Shri M.B.Shirsat, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Shri Lade, APP for the State/Respondent.

ORDER

1.This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for releasing applicant/accused on bail in C.R.No. 316/2022 of DCB CID (Chembur Police Station, C.R.No. 666/2022) (CCTNS No. 908/2022) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 170, 120(B) of the IPC.

2.It is alleged by the applicant/accused that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He is a permanent resident of Chembur, Mumbai, therefore it is not possible for him to abscond or
there are no chances of flee from justice. The Son of applicant/accused has attended the Medical Examination at JJ Hospital. Thus applicant and his son are themselves victims. The applicant/accused has lodged report against the Co-accused Nitin Sathe in R.C.F Police station prior to registration of present crime. This fact is itself sufficient to prove his innocence. The applicant/accused was arrested on 21/12/2022, he has undergone the custodial interrogation, nothing remains to be seized from his possession, therefore applicant/accused prayed for releasing him on bail.

3.The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply vide Exh.2. The contention of the prosecution that accused has played the major role in the commission of offence. During the investigation search of his house was taken, at that time, police has found many fabricated medical certificate, bio-data of the students. So he supplied or prepared the fabricated documents. The applicant/accused is the direct beneficiary of the crime. The allegations against accused that from 23 students they have extracted more than one crore rupees amount. The accused persons extracted the amount from the students
to engage them in a service and their interview was conducted in a building like Mantralaya of Maharashtra. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.

4.Perused application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard both advocates at length.

5.The advocates for the applicant/accused submitted that though previous bail application was rejected by this Court. But at the relevant time some documents are not brought before court. The son of applicant/accused namely Rohit has paid amount for securing his job, so the applicant/accused himself victim in the crime. The son of accused has undergone Medical Examination, this facts itself shows that the applicant/accused is not involved with other accused in the commission
of offense.

6.The applicant/accused relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Dilpreet Singh V/s State of Punjab. CRM-M-31675 of 2023 dated 07/08/2023. Therein the Hon’ble High Court held that “The entire case is based on documentary evidence and the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and thus, no
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration and the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail on the ground of parity also”.
On the same point advocates for the applicant/accused relied on the ration laid down in following cases

: Sr. No. Judgments.

1 Ram Gopal V/s. The State of Rajasthan (1983WLN85).

2 Kavi Arora V/s. State of Delhi (Hon’ble Delhi High Court – Bail Application 1059/2022 & Crl.M.A. 6244/2022)
3 Pinkeshbhai Ashokbhai Kanudavala V/s. State of Gujarat Cri.B.A.No. 95 of 2024
(Hon’ble Gujarat High Court – R/CR.MA/13133/2023 – order dated 26/10/2023).
Salimbhai Nizamuddin Dhapa V/s. State of Gujarat 2023 DGLS(Guj.) 371.
Raman Pillai Bhaskaren Nair Sreekumar (R.B.Sreekumar) V/s. State of Gujarat (Hon’ble Gujarat High Court R/CR.MA/21621/2022 – order dated 04/08/2023. I have gone through the First Information Report (F.I.R.), statement of witnesses, the documents seized by the police from accused persons. The allegation against the accused is that the accused persons deceived the needy people who are in need of job or service. The accused persons assured the informant and other victims that they will give employment in Mantralaya as they were serving there. On that count huge amount was collected by accused persons. The informant and near about 23 victims paid rupees 9 to 10 lakhs each to the accused persons.

8.The contention of applicant/accused that he is himself victim in this matter. He further submitted that he has lodged report against the co-accused in RCF Police Station, before registration of
crime in the present matter. But the statement recorded by the investigation officer specifically stated that the applicant/accused has played the major role along with main accused Nitin Sathe. The bail
application of co-accused was rejected by this court and they were also prayed for bail after filing of charge sheet. So there is no change in circumstances.

9.The serious allegations against the applicant/accused that they have not only conducted the interview of the students in Mantralaya, but also gave them medical examination form and called
for attending medical fitness test at J.J.Hospital, Mumbai. Accordingly, the victims were attended at J.J.Hospital. The co-accused conducted the farce of medical test. The accused persons also issued the forged appointment letter and all the act of cheating took place at the administrative department of Mantralaya, which is most trusted building or administrative department of Maharashtra. Therefore, in my opinion, considering the nature of offence, the way it was committed, if accused released on bail, in my opinion, there is possibility of tampering prosecution evidence and threatening prosecution witnesses. The applicant/accused contended that there is change in circumstance that previously it was not considered that the investigation officer has completed investigation and officer of the police filed charge sheet in the Court. The applicant/accused referred the page no. 401 to 409, 5189 to 1601, 1345 to 1347 and 1356 of charge-sheet. I have gone through the above documents. These documents are related to the medical examination of the son of accused in JJ hospital and applicant/accused lodged report against the accused no. 1 in RCF Police Station, Chembur. I have gone through the alleged report therein itself applicant/accused mentioned that he along with co-accused Mahadeo
collected amount from student and it was given to the co-accused Nitin Sathe, so the involvement of applicant/accused is easily seen. There is no change in circumstance and if applicant/accused released on bail there is possibility of threatening prosecution witness and tampering prosecution evidence. The bail application of other accused also rejected by this court. Therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled to be released on bail. Considering this, I pass the following order :
– ORDER

1.Bail Application No. 95/2024 stands rejected.

2.Bail Application No. 95/2024 is disposed off accordingly.

(S.D.KULKARNI) Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, (Court Room No.66) Mumbai. Date : 01/02/2024 1. Dictated online on 2. Placed for correction on 3. Checked on 4. Correction carried on 5. Signed on 6. Delivered to Certified Copy Section on : 01/02/2024 : 01/02/2024 : 01/02/2024.
: 05/02/2024. : 05/02/2024. : “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER” UPLOAD DATE AND TIME 06/02/2024. 11.48 a.m. NAME OF STENOGRAPHER Miss M.A.Kulkarni. Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri S.D.Kulkarni.
(Court Room No.66). Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 01/02/2024. Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 05/02/2024. Judgment/Order uploaded on 06/02/2024.