:1:
Order on BA No.1023/24
MHCC020063482024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.1023 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.24 of 2024
Mrs. Meenakshi ORG Manisha Suresh Pawar
]
Age : 30 years, Occ : House sweeper
]
Residing at D/o Sitaram Yadav,
]
K-10/217 Om Sai Kripa Society,
]
Station Road, MMRDA Vasahat,
] Applicant/
Kanjur Marg (W), Mumbai-40078.
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Kanjur Marg Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Rao Ranjeet Shripat for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 9th May, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Mrs. Meenakshi ORG Manisha Suresh Pawar resident of Kanjur
Marg (W), Mumbai, under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail.

2.

A case being C.R. No.24 of 2024 is registered with Kanjur
Marg Police Station against the present Applicants for the offence
:2:
Order on BA No.1023/24
punishable under Sections 436, 336, 506 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”).
3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing their say at
Exhibit No.02.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
It is the case of prosecution that informant has purchased a
hut from applicant no.1 in the year 2014 for consideration of
Rs.7,00,000/-. Since past one month, all the three accused were
insisting to vacate the said hut. They are abusing and assaulting
the informant party. On 06.02.2024, at about 3.00 a.m.,
informant realized smoke at the back side of her house. She
immediately rushed towards it and saw that her house was set on
fire. She raised an alarm and made appeal to the neighboring
residents to help her. But then accused threatened them that if
anyone would help her then he will set their houses on fire like
the house of informant. Accused threatened the informant and
went away.
5.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is previous
enmity between the parties. They have dispute in respect of
property. Allegations in the report are baseless. There is no
eyewitness to the incident. Applicant came to be arrested on
06.02.2024. There is no recovery or discovery as such remain
from the applicant. Applicant is a lady. Therefore, the application
:3:
Order on BA No.1023/24
be allowed and applicant be released on bail.
7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP objected the bail application on the
ground that the applicant has tendency to commit such offences.
There is a record to show that applicant used to allot hut to needy
persons and after taking substantial amount from them, compel
them to vacate the same. There are NCs registered to that effect
against applicant. Statement of witnesses support the case of
informant. Investigation is at pre-mature stage. Therefore,
application be rejected.

8.

On perusal of record it reveals that, this is successive bail
application filed by the applicant on the ground that charge-sheet
is filed and whereby investigation is complete. First bail
application filed by the applicant was rejected on merit,
considering prima facie concern of the applicant with alleged
offence.

9.

Howsoever it may be, record reflects that charge-sheet in this
case is filed and thereby, investigation is complete. Physical
custody of the applicant is thus would not be required for
custodial interrogation. Role of applicant is inferior to the role of
prime accused i.e. accused no.1.

10.

It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the applicant
that the applicant is a local resident. She is ready to abide any
condition on grant of bail. Applicant is a lady. She is behind bar
for substantial period. Considering all these aspects this Court is
of the view that the application filed by the applicant is to be
:4:
Order on BA No.1023/24
allowed with certain conditions. Hence, the following order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.1023 of 2024 is hereby allowed
and disposed off.

2. Applicant Mrs. Meenakshi ORG Manisha Suresh Pawar is hereby
released on bail in connection with C.R. No.24 of 2024 is
registered with Kanjur Marg Police Station against the present
Applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 336,
506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on furnishing
PR bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one
or more sureties in the like amount.

3. The Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for a period of three
months.

4. Applicant is directed not to enter the area / vicinity where the
informant resides till end of the trial.

5. The Applicant to make surety compliance before concern Court.
6. That the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation
by the Investigating Officer as and when required, under written
intimation.

7. The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or
pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

8. The Applicant shall furnish her contact number and residential
address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated,
in case there is any change.

9. The Applicant shall attend the dates of trial regularly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Digitally signed by
ADITEE UDAY KADAM
Date: 2024.05.10
15:59:15 +0530
Date: 09/05/2024
Mumbai
Dictated directly on computer
Signed by HHJ on
: 09/05/2024
: 09/05/2024
(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
:5:
Order on BA No.1023/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
10.05.2024 at 3.57 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
09.05.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
09.05.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
10.05.2024