B.A.1079/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1079 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020060682022 )
Mukesh Dhondiram Lade
Age: 43 years, Occ: Service
R/o: Ramabai Colony,
Collector Chawl, Chembur,
Mumbai 400089.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of Tilak Nagar P.Stn.
Vide C.R. No.517/2021)
…Applicant/Accused.
…Respondents/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Shankar Parab Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE, THE ADDL.
JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 12/07/2022.
ORDER
1]
This is an application filed by the applicant Mukesh
Dhondiram Lade U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, in the crime No.
517/2021 U/s 420,406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police
Station Tilak Nagar upon report of Bhagwan Dere.
2]
Case of prosecution, in short is as under,
That, on 12.10.2021, complainant Bhagwan Dere lodged report that in
the year 201718 he wanted to purchase the room. He met with the
present applicant Mukesh Lade, Estate Agent. He stated that one Vijay
Yadav wants to sale his room. It was agreed between complainant and
accused that the said room shall be sold for Rs.14 lacs and Rs.3 lacs
shall be paid to the applicant and his wife Swati. Complainant paid
B.A.1079/2022
..2..
Order
Rs.17 lacs to the applicant/accused. But the accused neither refunded
the said amount nor delivered the possession of the room to the
complainant. Applicant then executed a documents to refund the said
amount to the complainant in the installments and issued the cheques
to the complainant. All four cheques were dishonoured for want to
sufficient funds in the account of accused.
Based on these allegations offence came to be registered against
applicant and others.
3]
Applicant submitted that he is falsely implicated in the case.
The investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. No purpose
would be served by keeping him in the jail. Hence, applicant prayed for
grant of bail.
4]
Prosecution strongly objected the application on the ground
that the offence is of serious nature. Accused has committed similar type
of offence earlier also during the investigation it is revealed that the
accused had spent Rs.17 lacs in the Beer bar and the gambling. If he is
released on bail then he may abscond and he may pressurize the
prosecution witnesses.
5]
I heard both sides and perused the case diary. I have gone
through the Law laid down in respect of grant or refusal of bail, in
following cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court :
1]
Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., 2011 (13) SCALE 107,
(2012) 1 SCC 40;
2]
Moti Ram Vs State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47;
3]
Babu Singh Vs State of U.P., (1978)1 SCC 579;
B.A.1079/2022
..3..
4]
Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan,
MANU/SC/8394/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694,
6]
VivekKumarVs State of U. P., (2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi,
8]
Order
MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280;
State of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi,
MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati .Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh .Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978)1 SCC 118.
11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar .Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC
528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002)3 SCC
598
13]
Puran .Vs. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.
14] Neeru Yadav .Vs. State of UP,AIR 2015 SC 3703
15] Sharad Kumar..Vs…C.B.I, MANU/DE/2374/2011
17] Bhadresh .Vs. state of Bihar , (2016)1SCC 152
18]
Bharat Choudhary .Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77
19]
Munish Bhasin .Vs. State (NCT), (2009)4 SCC 45
20] Niranjan Singh .vs. Prabhakar Kharote AIR 1980 SC
785,
21] State of M.P. .Vs. RamKishna Balothia AIR 1995 SC 1198
22]
Pokar Ram .Vs. State of Raj.AIR 1985 SC 969,
B.A.1079/2022
..4..
Order
23]
Samunder Singh .Vs. State of Raj. AIR 1987 SC 737
24]
Ravindra Saxena .Vs. State of Raj. (2010)1 SCC 684
25]
Pravinbhai Patel .Vs. State of Gujarat (2010)7 SCC 598
26]
Ram Govind Upadhay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC
598,
27]
State of Mah. .Vs. Anand Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625,
28]
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani .Vs. State of U.P. (2006)9 SCC 425)
29]
Gurubakshsingh Sibbia Vs State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC
1632
30]
Maruti Navale Vs state of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 235
31]
State through CBI Vs Anil Sharma (1997) 7 187
and considered following factors while deciding this bail application :
(i)
Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii)
Nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)
Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on
bail;
(v)
Character, Behaviour, Means, Position and Standing of
the accused;
(vi)
Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with and
(viii) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
B.A.1079/2022
6]
..5..
Order
In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the
case diary. The agreement executed by the applicant accused admitting
the receipt of Rs.17 lacs from the complainant, and his failure to provide
the room to the complainant is on record. He also admitted to refund
the said amount to the complainant and issued the 4 cheques in favour
of complainant which are dishonoured. This clearly shows that there
was intention of cheating the complainant since beginning. I.O. also
stated that it is revealed during the investigation that present accused
spent entire amount of Rs.17 lacs in the Beer bar and gambling.
Accused relied upon Yaseem Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021
ALL MR (Cri) 42, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has granted the bail
to the accused as nothing is recovered from her and there was dispute
about the tittle to the property agreed to be sold to the complainant of
that case. However, in the present case the question of recovery does
not arise as the entire amount is spent by the applicant/accused in the
Beer bar and gambling. Therefore, the fact of that case and the present
case in my hand defers.
And if he is released on bail there is a
possibility of commission of similar kind of offence in the future.
Considering all these facts, accused is not entitled for the bail. Hence, I
pass following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1079/2022 is hereby rejected and disposed
of accordingly.
SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
MENJOGE
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
MENJOGE
Date:
2022.07.12
16:46:37 +0530
( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 12.07.2022.
: 12.07.2022.
: 12.07.2022.
B.A.1079/2022
..6..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
12.07.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
No.)
S.M. MENJOGE, Addl. Judge.,City Civil &
Sessions Court, (C.R.No.17).
Date of pronouncement of /Order
12.07.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
12.07.2022.
order uploaded on
12.07.2022.