1
B.A.356/24
MHCC020025612024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.356 OF 2024
1. Manish Vijay Singh Chauhan
Aged 27 years, Occ : Shop
2. Sonu Vijay Singh Chauhan
Aged 22 years, Occ : Student,
Both are residing at G/158,
Purvi Jawahar Nagar, Loni,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

….Applicants
– Versus –
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of East Region Cyber
Police Station C.R.No.02/2023)
.… Respondent
Appearance :Adv. Q. S. Kapasi for the Applicant/ accused.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the respondent.

CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 27/02/2024
ORDER
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing them on bail in connection with
crime registered at East Region, Cyber Police Station Vide C.R.No.
02/2023 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 465,
2
B.A.356/24
467, 468, 471, 419, 420, r/w 34 of The Indian Penal Code and Section
66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2.

It is alleged by the applicant / accused that they are
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused are
arrested on 06.01.2024. They have undergone custodial interrogation.
Nothing is to be seized or recovered from the possession of the accused.
Therefore, there is no point in keeping the accused behind bars. They
are the permanent resident of their given address therefore they prayed
for releasing them 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 are
released on bail there are chances of flee from justice. If the accused are
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 and ld. APP for the State.
5.

I have gone through the application, reply, documents filed
on record. It is the case of the prosecution that one Mrs. Subbalaxmi S.
lodged report with the police that she received phone call of the person
stating his name as Rahul Shah. On her mobile phone he informed that
he is proprietor of H.R. Dyechem. He further stated that he has bank
account with Bank of India and he is required to transfer the amount by
RTGS. By using forged letter head of the company with forged seal, the
letter was forwarded to the bank. The bank officer was induced to
3
B.A.356/24
transfer Rs.28,11,800/- by RTGS. Later on it was revealed that it was
forged and fabricated letter-head by means of which that amount has
been transferred to the beneficiary accounts. Therefore, report is lodged
report and offence is registered u/Sec.465, 467, 468, 471, 419, 420,
r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 66(C), 66(D) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.

6.

During investigation it is revealed that in the account of
accused Sonu Vijay Singh Chauhan amount of Rs.2 lakhs have been
credited and in the account of Manish Vijay Singh Chauhan amount of
Rs.3 lakhs have been credited. Amount of Rs.1 lakh has been credited in
the name of accused Manish Singh by UPI transaction. The accused
Sonu Vijay Singh Chauhan has withdrawn the amount from ATM and
also transferred the amount to other account. The accused Manish Vijay
Singh Chavan has also transferred certain amount to different account.
It appears from the record that both the accused are involved in the
offence of cheating the public bank. There is offence of forgery related
to the public money. The accused alleged to have been arrested on
06.01.2024. There is also offence u/Section 467 of IPC which is
punishable more than seven years. Investigation related to accused is in
progress. Charge sheet is not yet filed. The accused are resident of Uttar
Pradesh. If they are released on bail they may flee away from the
justice. It will hamper the investigation. It is the case of Cyber fraud,
technical investigation is required to be carried out. For such detail and
fair investigation custody of accused is necessary. Considering the
nature of offence, considering the fact that the investigation is in
progress, the accused are resident of Uttar Pradesh, there are chances
that they may flee away from justice. Hence, I am of the view that they
4
B.A.356/24
are not entitled for the bail. In the result, I pass the following order :
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.356 of 2024 is rejected and disposed of
accordingly.

Date : 27/02/2024
Dictated on
Transcribe on
Signed by HHJ on
: 27.02.2024
: 01.03.2024
: 05.03.2024
( RAJESH A. SASNE)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

5
B.A.356/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
05/03/2024
5.25 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri.
Room No.)
R.A. SASNE, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 27/02/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
05/03/2024
ORDER uploaded on
05/03/2024