Bail Application No.552/2024.
MHCC020035822024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 552 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 91 OF 2023.

Mohabbat Khursaid Khan
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Wadala T. T. Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.91/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Iqbal Qureshi for the Applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 04TH MARCH, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Mohabbat Khursaid Khan
being accused in C.R.No.91/2023 registered with Wadala T. T. Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 384 of the Indian
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.552/2024.
Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) alongwith Section
67(A) of Information Technology Act, seeks bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the applicant that, the informant was in
receipt of a Whatsapp video call from an unknown person as on
23.03.2023, wherein the lady appearing on the screen was found in
compromising position and thus, the informant switch off the call.
Further, at about 8.10 p.m. said unknown person sent video of 11
seconds propelling similar such compromising images of a female
alongwith that of the informant.

At about 8.20 p.m. the said
unknown person called to informant and demanded Rs.21,000/- with
a threat of making said video viral. Accordingly, the informant send
such amount of Rs.21,000/- on the link provided by the said
unknown individual. Further, such sum on various occasions were
extorted from the informant and the said amount in all is to the tune
of Rs.1 lakh. Similar such threatenings were given to the informant
on several occasions and accordingly, the offence was registered
under Sections ibid.
3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated and that there is no prima-
facie
evidence
propelling
for
such
involvement
of
the
applicant/accused in the present crime. It is further stated that, the
charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and the investigation has
substantially concluded.

Furthermore, the main accused in the
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.552/2024.
present crime is not yet arrested by the respondent agency and that
the applicant/accused inspite of conducting his business in money
transfer has been falsely arraigned in the present crime. The police
have arraigned the applicant/accused on the statements qua the bank
statements and the transfer of such amount as received in the
account of the applicant/accused and therefore, in view of the same,
further incarceration of the applicant/accused is not necessitated.
Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlarging
the applicant/accused on bail.
4.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the applicant/accused have committed
similar such offence and his custody is required in such other crimes.
Furthermore, it is also evident that, the applicant/accused, his wife
and daughter are recipient of such sums in their accounts and that
the applicant/accused alongwith his relatives have received such
larger quantum of amount in their account sans any explanation to
that effect.

Prosecution further apprehends for abscondance,
tampering of evidence and threatenings to prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.

6.

On meticulous examination of the application, reply and
appended documents it palpably evinces to myself that, the
applicant/accused has not denied for such receipt of sum in his
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.552/2024.
account or in the account of his wife and daughter. Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused has vehemently stated that, such amount was
during
the
course
of
his
business
transaction,
as
the
applicant/accused is engaged into the business of money transfer at
his village.

Furthermore, it is also evident that, the sleuth of
respondent agency has retrieved all such material propelling for such
large quantum of sums/transaction being held in the account of the
applicant, which he justifiably states that, those are his business
transactions. In this regard, nothing to propel that the said amount is
being received during the course of transaction has been stated or
placed by way of any such document.
7.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has tendered such
documents vide Exh.3 which propels for the identity documents
inclusive of Ration card, Birth Certificate, Aadhar Card and such
other documents inclusive of GST No. Certificate and ID of the
applicant/accused. It is pertinent that, the said document do not
justify for the quantum of sum as received by the applicant/accused
in his account.

8.

Moreover, this Court has raised a specific query with the Ld.
Advocate for applicant/accused with regard to such receipt of sum to
the tune of Rs.63 Lakhs approximately in the account of the
applicant/accused’s wife and daughter. It is stated that, the said
amount is transferred by the applicant/accused himself being an
amount received in his business. The said justification cannot be
considered at this juncture, more especially when the traces of
investigation pertaining to such large sum are under progress. So
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.552/2024.
also in the case of P. Chidambaram the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
palpably settled the position with regard to such economic crime
which deserves consideration as it has its wide impact upon the
economy of the Country. In view of the same, I do not find this as a
fit case for grant of bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold
that, the application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.552/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 04.03.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.03.05
17:11:12 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 04.03.2024.
Transcribed on : 04.03.2024.
HHJ signed on : 05.03.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.552/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
05.03.2024
05.10 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
04.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
05.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
05.03.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6