1
B.A. 655/24
MHCC020041822024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.655 OF 2024
Manoj Kuwar Singh
Aged 28 years, Occ – Worker
Residing at Ward No.7, Sundrawali,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan 321205
… Applicant
– Versus The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of CSMT Railway Police Station,
vide Cr. No.136/2024)
… Respondent
Appearance :Adv. Smita Pawar for the applicant.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 15/03/2024
ORDER
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of The
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with
C.R.No.136/2024 registered with C.S.M.T. Railway Police Station,
Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec. 3, 25 of the
Arms Act, Section 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section
201, 182, 166(a), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2
2.

B.A. 655/24
It is the contention of the applicant / accused that he is
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is
arrested on 03.03.2024. 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. 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.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.2.2024 the
informant Tulshiram Shinde was attending his duty at Sandhurst Road
Railway Station. On 19.02.2024 in the morning at 7.58 a.m. when he
was patrolling, he noticed the Nylon bag contending pistol and bullet
therein. He do not found the person who owned the said bag. He
produced said gun to CSMT Railway Police Station. The report was
accordingly lodged u/Sec.3,25 of the Arms Act and Section 37(1), 135
of the Maharashtra Police Act.

3
6.

B.A. 655/24
During the investigation CCTV footage was checked. On
verification it was found that the report of said Tulshiram do not match
with the factual circumstances recorded in the CCTV footage. On
inquiry with Tulshiram Shinde it is revealed that the applicant Manoj
Kuwar Singh is also involved in the offence. During investigation it is
further revealed that in the CCTV footage it is recorded that both these
accused had caught one person namely Irfan. They also called the
brother of the said Irfan. It is revealed that both the accused have
accepted Rs.18,000/- from the brother of the accused Irfan and left him
go away without taking any action. According to the prosecution both
these police officers have caught said Irfan with the gun and bullets but
instead of taking action against him by accepting Rs.18,000/- from his
brother they left him go away. Thereafter it appears that the accused
had plan to show that the gun and bullet was lying on the railway track
unattended. According to said plan the accused Tulshiram produced
these articles in the CSMT Railway Police Station and lodged false
report. The applicant Manoj has been arrested on 03.03.2024. Now he
is in judicial custody. The applicant has relied upon the following
judgments :
1. Surinder
Kumar
Khanna
V/s.

Intelligence
Officer
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in Cri. Appeal No.949
of 2018 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. Indra Dalal V/s. State of Haryana in Cri. Appeal No.1261 of
2009 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
8.

I have gone through the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, they are in respect of statement of co-accused. It is urged by
the ld advocate for the applicant that the applicant has been arrested
only on the basis of statement of co-accused. In my view that is not
4
B.A. 655/24
correct. The prosecution has evidence of CCTV footage in which the
active role of the applicant has been recorded. Both the accused have
acted in collusion to deceive the police. The applicant is police officer.
His duty is to prevent the commission of offence and not to encourage it
but the record shows that the applicant / accused is involved in the
grave offence of cheating the police by lodging false report of unclaimed
arms. In spite of their knowledge of the person who was found in
possession of the said arms, by accepting bribe, they left the said person
and lodged false report. The applicant is a public officer who committed
breach of public duty. He has been arrested on 03.03.2024.
Investigation in the offence is in progress. Other accused are yet to be
arrested. Considering the status of accused there are chances that he
may tamper with the prosecution witness. Release of the applicant will
hamper the investigation. Considering the seriousness of the offence I
am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for the bail. In the
result I pass the following order :
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.655 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.
Date : 15/03/2024
Dictated on
: 15.03.2024
Transcribed on
: 16.03.2024
Signed by HHJ on : 19.03.2024
( RAJESH A. SASNE )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

5
B.A. 655/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
19/03/2024
4.55 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 15/03/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
19/03/2024
ORDER uploaded on
19/03/2024